Ship of Fools: Is nobody going to bid Rowan a polite farewell?

Thread: Is nobody going to bid Rowan a polite farewell? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024631

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

'Cos, if not, I will.

I know that opinions differ widely on the subject of our retiring ABC, but I, for one, have a good deal of respect for the man. I would not wish to attempt to do his (shortly ex) job and would not wish it upon anybody. Given just how greasy has been the tightrope he has had to walk, I think he has done remarkably well in these last 10 years.

I well remember hearing him preach back in the days when he was bishop of Monmouth. He stood on the chancel step and leaned on his (very simple) crozier and spoke completely without any sort of notes - the sort of sermon that I would admire deeply if it had been preached from a script. As a lay preacher myself, I was deeply jealous ...

So, even if nobody else is going to, I will wish Rowan many years of contentment as Master of Magdalene.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I really hope his new job goes well. He's an excellent chap, and the job has visibly aged him. If his successor is half as good then the CoE will be very lucky.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

From some POV's it's been a reasonable tenure: from others - notably a lot of faffing around over soem DH issues - it's been a resolute failure.

In industry terms, no gold watch perhaps a £35 M & S voucher?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The problem with ++RW was not his leadership, but people not wanting to be led.

Someone who can debate with Dawkins on an intellectual level whilst maintaining a simplicity of faith all whilst in a position of leadership is pretty unique. He did a very good job.

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If his successor is half as good then the CoE will be very lucky.

We should not judge any of his successors with how well they fit into Rowan's shoes. Dr Williams is unique, there will never be another like him.

I pray that God will continue to bless Dr Williams in his new role, and for Justin Welby as he takes over.

Well done RoWan Williams.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think Rowan is a lovely man, and I wish him well in the future.

However, I think his tenure as ABC will be looked on as a failure, because he has failed to resolve the issue of Women Bishops - and that debacle will, sadly, be one of the lasting memories of his time. He has also failed to resolve the problem of gay marriage, and homosexuality in the church as a whole.

It is not entirely his fault, but then the legacy of a tenure is not always under the control of the tenant.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The problem with ++RW was not his leadership, but people not wanting to be led.

The measure of a good leader is how they deal with just that kind of circumstance.

We are in a world where a leader's credibilty has to be earned and cannot be simply assumed as was so often the case in the past. Sadly, on Rowan's watch, this has finally hit the top of the CofE - IMHO his big mistake was to assume that the church would follow where he wanted it to go, whatever.

The outcry over Jeffrey John (Elton's suburban twin) and Reading was his - and the church's - wake up call, both for the theological issues involved and the presumption of authority and leadership.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The outcry over Jeffrey John (Elton's suburban twin) and Reading was his - and the church's - wake up call, both for the theological issues involved and the presumption of authority and leadership.

Indeed. I do wonder how differently the last few years would have turned out if Archbishop Rowan had gone ahead with appointing Jeffrey John to Reading.

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

Rowan was (and remains) a fantastic, warm person when he performs in a personal capacity. As a preacher, he speaks directly to people with a humour and understanding that is wonderful to experience. His intellect is amazing (as Richard Dawkins discovered), so his move to Cambridge is set to use his strengths. The programme on BBC2 tonight, Goodbye to Canterbury showed all these qualities very well.

As others have said, the job of ABC requires leadership and communication skills, and these are rarely found with Rowan's personal and intellectual characteristics.

One view of Rowan that I have heard is that he listened too much to people and advisers with views diverging from his own, whilst not taking advice from people with views similar to his own, assuming that he understood well those views. This has lead to trying to square the circle on several issues, where there is not and cannot be one single acceptable way forward for pro- and anti- individuals. The C of E has therefore appeared paralysed by these issues, having not made a decision one way or the other.

I am certain that Rowan did not seek the job ten years ago, so he deserves our heartfelt thanks for taking on what he has admitted requires the hide of a rhinoceros. No other bishop in the last ten years has acquired even a hint of a reputation that he would have done a better job than Rowan, so I am sure that he was the right choice ten years ago.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I think Rowan has been an excellent Archbishop, possibly the best in my lifetime.

When I was born, Fisher was Archbishop. I wasn't particular conscious of him or interested at the time, but from everything I've read since, so far he was almost certainly the least excellent.

Rowan's misfortune has been to find himself trying to lead a tribe of people of whom many of the noisiest have been unusually insufferable, obstreperous and largely pointless. They complain that he has not danced to their tunes, but if, in stead, he had stamped on them, they would have squealed.

We have not deserved such an Archbishop and now we have not got one. I am very sad. I only hope Justin fares better.

Exclamation Mark, would you have been happier if Rowan had cracked the whip, guillotined debate, imposed the Covenant and forced people into line? Would you also have been happier if he had bounced either the USA or Nigeria into leaving the Anglican Communion? It's difficult to reconcile that approach with the notions that we should love one another, that peacemakers are blessed or that a leader should be among us as one who serves.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think Rowan is a lovely man, and I wish him well in the future.

However, I think his tenure as ABC will be looked on as a failure, because he has failed to resolve the issue of Women Bishops - and that debacle will, sadly, be one of the lasting memories of his time. He has also failed to resolve the problem of gay marriage, and homosexuality in the church as a whole.

It is not entirely his fault, but then the legacy of a tenure is not always under the control of the tenant.

I agree with you, but then the ability to reconcile irresistible forces with immovable objects has ever proved difficult.

I watched his Goodbye to Canterbury on BBC TV yesterday evening (here, for those in the UK). I thought it explained him and his tenure better than anything else I've seen and read. As a Catholic, I have fairly serious issues about the disconnect (as I perceive it) between his theology and his ecclesiology but I, for one, will miss him for reasons that I struggle to express with clarity and brevity but which that programme conveyed brilliantly.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Rowan was an outstanding ABC. The problem seems to have been that he arrived ten years too late. He should have been appointed in 1991.

History will be on his side; we will soon be talking of the Good Old Days.

In some ways the Church wasn't worthy of him. It would have been better if he had refused point blank to discuss Women in the Episcopate or Homosexuality, as these issues and those on either side who wished to prolong tortuous and tendious discussion, sapped the energy and attention from the real issues.

And the real issues? To quote Morris West: 'is there a God?' ; 'who takes the vengenance that is denied to me?' 'what is it that gripes in people's guts and makes them cry into their pillows at night?' Issues that belong not to the Club, but to the vast swathe of the nation outside the Club.

Rowan would be/was masterful and humane and godly at addressing these. His discussions at the University of Surrey was quite wonderful - as was the reception given to him by an intelligent and largely agnostic-atheist audience.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Exclamation Mark, would you have been happier if Rowan had cracked the whip, guillotined debate, imposed the Covenant and forced people into line? Would you also have been happier if he had bounced either the USA or Nigeria into leaving the Anglican Communion? It's difficult to reconcile that approach with the notions that we should love one another, that peacemakers are blessed or that a leader should be among us as one who serves.

No - I wouldn't make me happier. For the simple reason that none of that kind of behaviour you describe ISTM is symtomatic of what the NT deands of a leader (the meaning is close to helmsman or steerer).

RW has vacillitated so much that the anglican communion stands to lose both the USA AND Africa. His lack of clarity in public (and I accept that he is possibly different in private) meant that no camp trusted him since, as the Jeffrey John fiasco proved, he changed his mind after the event causing greater hurt than if he had come down on one side or another in the first place. Either he didn't think things through in the reflection stage or he moved with the wi nd of public opinion - either way it undermines your leadership credentials.

I have conservative views on sexuality but I'd find it more palatable to deal with an ABC who makes a decision (even if I think/know it to be wrong) than one who avoids tough issues hoping they will go away. They never ever do.

Leaders need 3 interdependant and distinctive qualities
- a willingness to serve: accept brickbats - pass on bouquets
- personal integrity
- personal credibility

Rowan obviously has the first. I'm sure he has the second but his "fiddling while canterbuy burns" gives him less than 50% effectiveness here. The third? A failure. His credibility as a leader of the communion was destroyed by his vacillation and his inabiliuty or unwillingness to express his integrity and personal values.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is not entirely his fault, but then the legacy of a tenure is not always under the control of the tenant.

I agree but he's failed to make clear (perhaps more succinctly, to be clear), where the organisation is headed. That will be his legacy - missed opportunities whether by accident, force of cicumstances or by design or unwillingness to engage (sadly, too true).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:

1. Rowan was (and remains) a fantastic, warm person when he performs in a personal capacity. As a preacher, he speaks directly to people with a humour and understanding that is wonderful to experience. His intellect is amazing (as Richard Dawkins discovered), so his move to Cambridge is set to use his strengths.

2. As others have said, the job of ABC requires leadership and communication skills, and these are rarely found with Rowan's personal and intellectual characteristics.

3. One view of Rowan that I have heard is that he listened too much to people and advisers with views diverging from his own, whilst not taking advice from people with views similar to his own, assuming that he understood well those views. This has lead to trying to square the circle on several issues, where there is not and cannot be one single acceptable way forward for pro- and anti- individuals. The C of E has therefore appeared paralysed by these issues, having not made a decision one way or the other.

1. He's very good with a narrow band of people - intellectual, liberal, educated. He's less good with popular theology and expressions that reach the man in the street. He couldn't cope with a mixed parish in Cambridge in the 1980's - rarely spending much time in the council house part of it preferring to work mostly across Milton Road in middle class Chesterton.

His apprearance and way of speaking don't (and didn't) help. Cambridge will suit him well, though, on his second run there.

2. It's not always true, agreed, but I wouldn't use the word "rarely" from my own personal experience. Anyway, if it was so, why was he elected?

3. Leadership demands decision making - which itself means you have to come down on one side or another or find a via media if possible. A via media wasn't possible for most of the major issues RW faced so instead of making a decision he let it slide, hoping it'd go away. That isn't leadership - that is weakness.

The legacy of RW? Possibly in the future historians will look back and say "that's when the Anglican communion began to fragment into the 3 provinces we have today". Blame or responsibility with RW? Only History will tell.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QUOTE] Indeed. I do wonder how differently the last few years would have turned out if Archbishop Rowan had gone ahead with appointing Jeffrey John to Reading.

I'm puzzled that the whole thing got to that stage anyway. RW must have known that it would cause problems - was he trying to slip one uner the radar and hope that it wouldn't be noticed and a precedant established?

Like a few things it would smack of naivetie were it someone in a less public position. But, as ABC he must have known (or should have known -if he didn't it isn't bad leadership, it's stupidity to boot), that it would cause a stink.

After all, his (RW's) views plus his friendship with JJ was well known. Who on earth was he trying to kid? That's the sort of attitude that puts people's back up and which destroys rust - the hardest thing in the world to regain.

It was never going to happen anyway once the con evo wing (and back then the open evo's as well), made it plain that they would take pre emptive action if the nomination went ahead. Money talks and the wealthiest parishes in erms of giving and size are from that constituency.

Using money and giving as a lever to get one's own way (or at least stop any actions of which one disapproves) will become a more regular feature of the Anglican decision making process, I'm sure.

A final plank in the coffin is the obvious disconnect between synodial government and the people in the pews. Women bishops is a case in point. How can 42/44 dioceses in favoutr become a 35% "No" vote is beyond me - clearly there are a significant minority of synod members who refuse to be bound by an exercise that has sought God's will in the parishes.

It doesn't bode well but it isn't all RW's fault. What is down to his watch is that he knew about it but did nothing to stop it. He's had the chance to bring it all into the modern world after the JJ fiasco but has done little in the public sphere except to support sharia law. That hasn't won him any friends either.

He's let down his friends who expected more of him: he's confirmed the prejudices of the con evo's who simply say "I told you so."

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I do wonder how differently the last few years would have turned out if Archbishop Rowan had gone ahead with appointing Jeffrey John to Reading.

No difference at all I suspect. Whatever fuss there was about Jeffrey John would have blown over sooner or later, and we'd be in much the same place we are now.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
1. He's very good with a narrow band of people - intellectual, liberal, educated. He's less good with popular theology and expressions that reach the man in the street. He couldn't cope with a mixed parish in Cambridge in the 1980's - rarely spending much time in the council house part of it preferring to work mostly across Milton Road in middle class Chesterton. [/QB]

On the other hand, he did a placement (as a student) in one of the most deprived parishes in Merseyside and is still remembered there with affection. Especially his down to earth but profound encounters in pubs.

I've heard him talk about poetry (admittedly not an obviously working-class interest) to a mixed audience without patronising them but clearly connecting and making it real to them. I have it on good authority that when he preaches in 'ordinary' parishes he gets a profound message across in a very accessible way.

The former archbishop (of recent years) with whom he has most in common is +Michael Ramsey. Ramsey was criticised for being 'out of touch', 'too spiritual', lacking practical understanding, and being a poor administrator. Only the last criticism has any credibility, with hindsight. +Rowan has had to deal with far more turmoil in ecclesiastical politics, and despite his wider political concerns, his handling of it has been his weakest characteristic. I suspect +Justin will be much more adept in this area*, but I also suspect he would be the first to admit that intellectually and spiritually he is inferior. (Not that I think he is a poor choice for that reason)

What I look for in a bishop, and an archbishop, is a holy teacher and a wise pastor. Rowan has shown overwhelmingly that he is both. I'll second the request in the thread title, though I would say a 'warm', rather than just 'polite', farewell. Except that it's not really farewell and we can look forward to much more wisdom emanating from Cambridge in the future.

*one of the reasons, as well as his obvious strengths, is that as an evangelical from a conservative background he is likely to be regarded with far less suspicion by those who have been set against Rowan from the start, especially on the DH issues.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QUOTE] Indeed. I do wonder how differently the last few years would have turned out if Archbishop Rowan had gone ahead with appointing Jeffrey John to Reading.
I'm puzzled that the whole thing got to that stage anyway. RW must have known that it would cause problems - was he trying to slip one uner the radar and hope that it wouldn't be noticed and a precedant established?

Like a few things it would smack of naivetie were it someone in a less public position. But, as ABC he must have known (or should have known -if he didn't it isn't bad leadership, it's stupidity to boot), that it would cause a stink.

Perhaps because JJ was living within the terms laid out in Issues in Human Sexuality, Archbishop Rowan assumed that there wouldn't be a problem. It turned out that the conservatives don't like gays even when they're chaste.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QUOTE]Perhaps because JJ was living within the terms laid out in Issues in Human Sexuality, Archbishop Rowan assumed that there wouldn't be a problem. It turned out that the conservatives don't like gays even when they're chaste.

Even if JJ was or is chaste (and there cannot be any actual evidence for that except that known by JJ), RW would have been aware of the Con Evos opposition to the findings of "Issues" from the very start, let alone the publication. [In one instance, in my personal knowledge, one person's definition of chaste isn't another's].

It appeared to some in that "constituency" that RW was trying to pull one over on them and so they dug in their heels. I'm not condoning the action but I wasn't surprised - the only surprise was that it wasn't taken further.

Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :

I shook his hand coming out of a special Evensong at a nearly church as part of his Farewell Tour, and wished him well for the future. He's well out of it, but has enriched us all with his very carefully considered writing and talks.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

I will join with all the assenting voices.

++Rowan is an eloquant, thoughtful and meditative preacher, on the two occassions I have heard him preach I have been genuinely uplifted and inspired whilst also being taught (normally my experiences of preachers meets maybe one or two of those three effects but rarely all three together, but that is just IME...) and his writings on matters of faith are some of the best I've read...

He will continue to be a great theological and academic source of inspiration for all in the AAnglican Communion (I pray) and it is something of a shame that there have been situations where he has not come of in the best light, as he quite readily admitted in his 'Farewell to Canterbury' (see Trisagion's link above if you haven't already).

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I've never met Rowan Williams personally, nor ever likely to .
I have though viewed him with admiration . He came across to me as a deep and thoughtful person.

In the evocative programme "Good-bye Canterbury" the rare quality of humility was also in evidence IMO.

I for one wish Rowan a fond farewell.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

People here are saying a lot about 'leadership' without realising that the Archbishop has no real power. he is not some sort of pope who can pass edicts. he simply chairs Lambeth Conferences et al as first among equals.

The idea that he simply needed to 'put his foot down' is a failure to understand the way the Anglican Communion works.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Indeed - and it didn't take long (even in Heaven) to get to the tiresome JJ debate yawn yawn, exactly the sort of issue that exhausted the time of a great and prayerful man. In that, the church was not worthy of him, and wasted his time and energy.

If leadership is the intellect, spirituality and holiness that we have seen, then we were well led. The pope chose Rowan Williams to address the Roman Synod of Bishops quite recently - unprecedented and sparsely reported, but momentous and magisterial. He was invited because of being Rowan Williams, not just ABC.

To watch his first public lecture on the BBC and see the audience (Tony Benn on front row) showed that from the start people thought he had something to say. Without being unkind, it would have been unthinkable for that audience to have gathered for, say, George Carey.

This must not be underestimated. In this particular age, when religious belief is frequently portrayed in the media and national stage as freakish, dangerous, or abusive, the most unexpected sorts listened respectfully to Rowan Williams. The fact that they were prepared to listen, indicates great personal authority exercised in an area that is perhaps the hardest of all to influence and permeate.

A great Archbishop. As history will show.

Posted by Thread Necromancer (# 17559) on :

When did Rowan leave? Hadn't heard that one.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
Rowan was (and remains) a fantastic, warm person when he performs in a personal capacity.

I've only come in to contact with him a couple of times - and both of those occasions were brief - but I'm increasingly of the view that he's not a particularly pleasant man at all.

He doesn't strike me as being nice, is rather aloof and I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bit of a bully.

While he is intelligent, I also wonder whether that can be overstated. His apparent inability to explain what he's thinking in a way that ordinary people understand seemed to make him more of a liability than an asset at times.

Anyway, that's my two-pennyworth.

[ETA: Yes, and according to the New Rules for Heaven, your post should have been in rhyme. The next person to post on this thread will therefore have to post a rhyme relevant to the thread topic.

Cheers
Ariel
Heaven something or other]

[ 12. February 2013, 11:47: Message buggered about with by: Ariel ]

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Prose...

[Post deleted. If you'd read the one above, you'd know I asked for the next poster to post in rhyme.

[Razz]

Ariel
Heaven ****]

[ 12. February 2013, 12:07: Message buggered about with by: Ariel ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:

[ETA: Yes, and according to the New Rules for Heaven, your post should have been in rhyme. The next person to post on this thread will therefore have to post a rhyme relevant to the thread topic.

Cheers
Ariel
Heaven something or other]

Apologies. Try again.

I've met Brother Rowan only a couple of time
And I thought 'this guy ain't no friend of mine'

Aloof, impolite, his head on Cloud Nine
A bully who thought 'this See is mine!'

In speeches did Rowan like to opine
Were such gibberish, was he on moonshine?

So I'm glad to hear of Rowan's resign
And welcome, Justin, would you like some wine?

Anyway, that's my dime.

(Best I could manage off the top of my head, I'm afraid.)

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

[Overused]

Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on :

Rowan's tenure, I suspect, it is feared,
Chief-ly for the length of his beard
Which muffled his voice
Like an ageing Max Boyce
With pronouncements particularly weird

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The problem with ++RW was not his leadership, but people not wanting to be led.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with just that kind of circumstance.

We are in a world where a leader's credibilty has to be earned and cannot be simply assumed as was so often the case in the past.

The world has arguably always been a bit like that, though. Moses very evidently had problems with people who didn't want to be led; once he convinced them to leave the flesh-pots of Egypt. Gordon Bennett, he only went up the mountain for a month and a bit to talk with God, and by the time he got back, they'd given up on him and were worshipping idols!

Elijah and other prophets trying to guide the Israelites into a true faith? Rarely a roaring success story. Even Jesus told the disciples to shake the dust from their shoes when people wouldn't listen to their message.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A*******'t:
He doesn't strike me as being nice, is rather aloof and I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bit of a bully.

This is the first time I've even heard this hinted at. And as we know, with regard to political and other public figures, critics, the media, 'sources' etc love to expand on the faults of those in the limelight. Your reason for it?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by A*******'t:
He doesn't strike me as being nice, is rather aloof and I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bit of a bully.

This is the first time I've even heard this hinted at. And as we know, with regard to political and other public figures, critics, the media, 'sources' etc love to expand on the faults of those in the limelight. Your reason for it?

A number of reasons, too hard to explain
Within the constraint of a couplet refrain

Perhaps when the ****s and the *****s are finished
My full views on Rowan can be published?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

An A*******-t of unepiscopal brain
Found it almost too hard to restrain
Themselves from talking a lot of old crap
About Rowan who's really a very nice chap

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

A Pome for Mr ***********

Insulting a Shipmate in Heaven
Can lead to a life behind bars
But there's neither one rule nor yet seven
'Gainst insulting a long row of stars.

[Razz]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

A poem quoth many in heavenly place
Of rhyme and reason capable
But on descending into purg
Nary a single epigram from them heard.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
He doesn't strike me as being nice, is rather aloof and I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bit of a bully.

Having spent a lot of time in his company before he became an archbishop, I can assure you that is not true. His aloofness is partly owing to him being an introvert and because of hearing problems. However, her is very courteous and i can't imagine him bullying anyone - unlike another archbishop we know.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... However, her is very courteous and i can't imagine him bullying anyone - unlike another archbishop we know.

Is that the one who recently gave their litigator an honorary doctorate, or yet another one that meets that description?

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

What about Pope Benedict? Will he have another post? Is this nearly unprecedented?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
What about Pope Benedict? Will he have another post? Is this nearly unprecedented?

There is discussion of that on this thread.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

As for the ABC, good riddance to bad rubbish. He completely underwhelmed the liberal wing of the church while kissing up to despotic African homophobic bishops.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
As for the ABC, good riddance to bad rubbish. He completely underwhelmed the liberal wing of the church while kissing up to despotic African homophobic bishops.

Where do you people get this shit from? [Mad]

And why post it here in this thread? Start one in Hell to slag him off maybe.

As for farewell, well he did better than I expected him to, better and than anyone else would have been likely to do. He stoiod up pretty well to the poress all things considewred, though they were out to get him from the start., just like they were out to get the previous archbishop. That was hardly Rowan's fault.

[ 14. February 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I got it from Rowan's behaviour. If the church wants to stay mired in the 19th centurey so be it.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I got it from Rowan's behaviour. If the church wants to stay mired in the 19th centurey so be it.

The issue isn't with those who want to stay in the 19th century, it's those that want to stay in the 17th century.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I recently visited Lambeth Palace, for a meeting that had nothing to do with the ArchB (the place is much larger than I'd realised, and lots of different Departments are based there).

Chatting about Rowan's departure, my chap mentioned that a secretary from his office went over to the ArchB's branch for a month, when flu was seeping the place. She came back visibly shaken by the amount of bile that was sent to him every day - hideous stuff, from "real Christians" writing in "Christian love".

I pray that he will enjoy the next stage in his ministry.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I'd take a bullet for him. He has inspired me more than any other church leader except perhaps Tutu.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0