Jason Byassee: Rowan Williams’ reckless generosity
Rupert Shortt begins “Rowan’s Rule,” his very fine biography of Rowan Williams, with a joke a friend and supporter once made to Williams: “God gave you all these gifts, and then punished you by making you Archbishop of Canterbury.” The comment is an almost perfect way for Shortt to begin the book -- but only “almost” because it lacks any reference to the archbishop’s dominant trait: humility.
Of course, Williams doesn’t see it that way, as the genuinely humble never do. Shortt reports that Williams considers pride to be one of his chief sins. How could you not to be proud when you’re a polyglot, a mystic, a world-renowned Oxford theologian at age 30 and holder of one of the chief sees in Christendom? Williams has to be one of the only people on planet earth who could hold his own theologically with Benedict XVI, the Metropolitans of the Orthodox churches, British novelist and atheist Phillip Pullman and former Prime Minister Tony Blair (whom he reports as being good on God, bad on irony!). Yet humble he is. Shortt tells a story about a poor family who showed up at their parish church to have their baby baptized after the service on a Sunday when Williams was visiting. The archbishop proceeded to baptize the child, the parents never knowing who he was -- he was just another man in a collar.
When I was a grad student at Duke in the mid-1990s, I met Williams -- and in fact got to drive him and his family around Durham for four days while he was lecturing here. When I picked him up, he helped his family clamber into my student-mobile, turned and gazed at me intently and said, “Tell me about your work.” I could have said, “No, see, I don’t have work. You have work. You’re Rowan freaking Williams.” I didn’t. He’d made me feel important. I told him about me. Years later, when I met him as a journalist covering a World Council of Churches meeting, he interrupted as I reintroduced myself: “Jason, Jane and the children would want me to pass on their greetings.”
I could blog for months out of “Rowan’s Rule.” I’m struck in particular by Oliver O’Donovan’s keen eye for sizing up his former colleague’s strengths and weaknesses. O’Donovan, a Christian ethicist who taught with Williams at Oxford, has observed that he views theology and leadership as a sort of graduate seminar, with never-ending banter, but no point at which someone comes to a steady conclusion. Williams’ theology holds that Jesus interrupts our easy consensuses -- this is handy against fundamentalisms of all kinds (like Jack Spong’s and Pullman’s), but less helpful in situations of, say, church discipline. All the same, to have a spectacular theologian as head of a church is somewhat novel today. One would think those liberals and conservatives in the Anglican Communion who are frustrated with Williams for not disciplining their opponents might have read his “Truce of God” or his “Resurrection.” They would realize that the Archbishop sees the risen Christ as one who meets us in the enemy with whom we cannot leave fellowship. For him to kick the bad guys out of the church would, unfortunately, be to kick out Jesus himself.
For now, I’ll limit myself to one episode from Shortt: Willams’ actions as Archbishop of Wales on who should be ordained a priest.
He had a soft spot for would-be ordinands who were down on their luck, Shortt writes: “He took gospel precepts on forgiveness of sins very seriously indeed.” This resulted in people being put forth for ordination who were not entirely suitable. This can turn out brilliantly -- as Shortt notes, Jesus himself was a radical practitioner of forgiveness of sins, given his way of attracting miscreants. In Williams’ case, Shortt calls it “holy naivete.” Williams and others have termed it a sort of “reckless generosity.” Whatever it was, it resulted in mistakes that harmed others. As Archbishop of Wales, he bore with one priest who later ran up debt, drank, and hurt his parish. He almost ordained another who’d been run off from several other churches and managed to escape his past. Williams has a defense in each individual case, but collectively it appears his arms were open a bit too wide. This is a good posture for those holding the door open for the kingdom via the church. But not for ordination. As one commentator says, “Ordination is not a right.” And sprinkling it around too “non-carefully” can harm those parishes on which such borderline priests are foisted.
I’m inclined to say this tendency toward leniency is merely a venial sin from a church leader. We’re at our worst when we’re drumming people out, even of leadership. Perhaps most of our greatest weaknesses are merely the obverse of our greatest strengths. And it gives me hope that the leader of one of the world’s great churches is a good and holy and brilliant man with a penchant for charity, even at the risk of excess.
Jason Byassee is an executive director of Leadership Education at Duke Divinity.
Thank you for a wonderful
Thank you for a wonderful post, Jason. I am also grateful to ++Rowan for the lesson that "failure" in an earthly endeavor - even within the church - is not necessarily inconsistent with God's will being accomplished in a given situation. Our failing (especially in the current Anglican unpleasantries) may be that both "sides" have too enthusiastic an expectation of success as a result of their efforts. This point is made particularly well in his book, Christ on Trial: How the Gospel unsettles our Judgment. Are you familiar with it?
I adore the book
and read it like you do in very similar terms to Resurrection and Truce. No one is better at the 'unsettling our judgments' motif than Rowan. I just wonder whether his unsettling needs unsettling somethings, just occasionally, with a little settlement! I wonder this far less perhaps than his many foes on both his flanks. Thanks for the kind words.
A "little settlement" would
A "little settlement" would be most welcome! :-)
I read Shortt's earlier biography of Rowan and enjoyed it immensely, as well as Mike Higton's "Difficult Gospel." Is the current volume such an improvement over those earlier works as to justify disturbing the order of the "must read someday" pile of books next to my desk (and chair and bed)?
I think so
Especially if you admire Rowan or are curious about leadership. One interesting criticism is his office's handling of the media. Poor Jonathan Jennings gets lambasted, though Shortt notes sometimes it's not entirely his fault when RW is working on things up until the last second and he can't screen them for would-be harmful soundbites. The other is the claim that Rowan should have brought his own staff and chaplain with him from Wales, that this could have offset some early missteps, but he didn't feel he could do it. This was new to me and fascinating--how someone with otherworldly brilliance could be waylaid by something so mundane as staff and media! Shortt isn't as good here on unfolding Rowan's theological contributions (Higton naturally is better at that), and he goes out of his way to ding RW on not understanding or liking capitalism to the point that it becomes predictable. But I really recommend it.
Thanks, Jason, You capture
Thanks, Jason,
You capture the warmth of this special man very well.
Thanks Mark
I appreciate it. I'm struck by how my support and admiration for Rowan bend over (embarrassing to say) into something like love. Maybe it helps that it's not my church he leads!
Reckless indeed
"For him to kick the bad guys out of the church would, unfortunately, be to kick out Jesus himself."
Try this and see if it works: "For him to kick the pedophiles out of the church would, unfortunately, be to kick out Jesus himself."
What's novel about this? Come on over to my church -- apparently this has been their philosphy for some time. With not altogether successful results. Now apply it across the board to all manner of unorthodox belief and behavior and see where it leads you. Good luck!
Ridiculous
Dear Guest,
This is what we would call, charitably, an uncharitable comment. No one is suggesting we include pedophiles, hate groups, cannibals, murderers, or space monsters. Keep the comments in the realm of the respectable or you get run.
bad guys
What then constitutes "bad guys?" I didn't write this quote -- the author did.
My point is very simple -- it's the JOB of those in authority in the church to keep out "bad guys." Unless "bad guys" is defined in some way in which the guys are not really bad, in which case, why make that statement. Which is it?? Because once you screw this up, you are in really serious trouble. Which I would argue your church is -- though not yet as bad as mine. But keep up that viewpoint and you certainly will be (perhaps via a different kind of "bad guy" but with equally disastrous results.)
anonymous accuser
One, the author would be me. Pay attention. And use your name.
Two I was reacting to the common inflammatory move of equating gays and pedophiles. Not just offensive, but stupid.
Three there are bad guys and there are bad guys. And those clothed in Christ's righteousness will agree they're nothing but bad guys forgiven. That doesn't take away the need for justice, by any stretch, but it does take away self-justification.
Wow -- interesting what's on
Wow -- interesting what's on YOUR mind! I'm talking pedophiles (actually you could have inserted any undesirable behavior/belief in the sentence to make my point) and YOU jump to gays??
But you still haven't told me. What "bad guys" is it that "unfortunately" (all your words) Rowan Williams seems unable to kick out?
BTW, there's a reason they call leaders in the church "shepherds." What is the shepherd's primary relationship to the sheep? He does teach them. He doesn't really feed them (although he takes them where they can be fed). His primary role can be defined in one word -- he PROTECTS them. No matter what else a church leader may do for his sheep, if he doesn't protect them from wolves, he is not a shepherd. And if he's letting the wolves into the sheep fold, how is he a shepherd?
Actually I have nothing at all to say about gays. I'm just stunned that THIS ARTICLE (not me, I wouldn't know the guy if he ran into me) says that a Rowan Williams, shepherd of the English church "unfortunately" has a tendency to let "bad guys" lead the sheep but what the heck he's still a great guy.
I said no such thing
Charitable reading means to present the other's point in its best possible light. Good luck working that out.
Charitable reading does not
Charitable reading does not require that you fail to notice gaping inconsistencies.
If Rowan Williams lets "bad guys" into the church as leaders, he is a bad shepherd. Whether he is "good, holy, and brilliant" would seem completely beside the point if he cannot perform the chief function of his job. Perhaps he should be good, holy, and brilliant in some other capacity.
Why an article that appears to accept that a man who (in the words of the article) runs the church like a graduate seminar in which no conclusion can ever be reached and no discipline ever exercised is suitable as a leader of any organization (much less the church) is utterly a mystery. Apparently pointing that out is "uncharitable."
I suspect that in other professions (banking, plumbing, car mechanic) you are much less "charitable" in requiring basic competence.
You're wrong
The scare quotes "bad guys" suggest that's my language. I used it colloquially in response to you in the comments. The question before the Anglican communion is whether one can be a committed faithful Christian and also a gay or lesbian person. You've clearly made up your mind on that question. Congratulations. The Anglican Communion has not, though large segments of course have. Rowan's trying to keep those in conversation with one another as Christians. You're doing a fine job of indicating how difficult that is.
Uh...I'm a Roman Catholic.
Uh...I'm a Roman Catholic. By definition I don't think you can be a member of the "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" in the west without being in communion with the See of Peter. So it's utterly irrelevant what I think about gays or anything else in the Church of England. I'm pointing out a huge problem with the leadership of Rowan Williams AS INDICATED BY THE EXACT WORDS OF THIS ARTICLE. But feel free to avoid thinking about it. I'm sure he's a great guy as are you all. Now we can link arms and sing "Kumbaya." Because, as we all know, the most important thing about any leader is that he/she keeps you "in conversation" and, above all, makes you feel good about yourself.
Uh..remind me again why you guys ever got up the cojones to HAVE a reformation? I mean...why weren't you just a bit more charitable and just stayed "in conversation" for a couple more hundred years and see if everything could be worked out as long as nobody came to any actual conclusions or made took any definitive actions?
Jason, your sharp response to
Jason, your sharp response to Guest strikes me as unduly harsh, and really avoiding the point that's being made. I also don't see how Guest could be interpreted as equating gays with pedophiles... in the paragraph where you mentioned "bad guys", you could have as easily been speaking about those who elect unrepentent homosexuals, those who cross diocesan boundaries for ministering purposes, those who file lawsuits against fellow believers, etc. The only concrete examples of "bad guys" you mentioned were ordinands who drank, spent, and neglected to the detrient of their congregations. You were the only one who tried to make the equation with sexuality in the comment section.
Guest has helpfully highlighted the problematic extent to which "bad guy" is rather underdetermined, and you seem to admit as much when you say you were using the term colloquially (although you did use it in the article rather than simply in the comments). The problem that Guest presents is... when does something count as "reckless charity" after all? Does the Catholic hierarchy's response to pedophilia fall under this category? You seem to take the analogy to be offensive, but I don't see how it is. The important point is that while a venial recklessness of charity should be recognized as at least aiming towards some good, there are still serious questions of ecclesial discipline to consider- not in order to be uncharitable, but in order to care for the least of these. And it seems to me that you still haven't acknowledged this point, but rather reacted rather defensively to a pretty open and respectable disagreement from a reader. Your tone ("Good luck with that", "You've clearly made up your mind on that question. Congratulations.") seems oddly out of sync with the sort of charity that you're trying to draw our attention to. Not that I personally have a problem with a bit of biting language or sharp words... only with such rhetoric when used in a purported defense of "charity".
By way of charity and moving forward, we should assume that you and Guest both have the Church's good as your end. The question remains, then: does a recognition of Williams' charity mean that we should not intervene, for the sake of the Church, against his recklessness?
You may also be interested to
You may also be interested to read something that I wrote on my blog about a week after this article was originally written (though I had not come across it at the time). Here I more or less discuss Williams' reckless generosity, as opposed to your focus on his reckless generosity (hopefully such emphases clarify the point):
"There are No Quick Solutions for the Wounds of the Body of Christ"
Thanks
I'm glad for the correction. Of course you're right about my tone in a post praising charity. I'm sorry for that. I felt baited by guest's attack, and assumed it was standard anti-gay rhetoric equating homosexuality and pedophilia. This seemed supported by the prophecy that a church in the posture of Rowan's is on the edge of doom, another trope. It sounds like I was just incorrect. In my defense (never a good way to start a sentence), he was also referring to "his" church, without indication of which, leaving me in the position of guessing. He was the one offering me congratulations. His final comment, "Uh, I'm Catholic," sounds like I should somehow have divined that, again, I think oddly and aggressively.
No argument that "bad guys" is undetermined here. In the post though I think it's pretty clear that I refer to how each strident party in the Anglican communion considers the other. Guest has concluded that Rowan as shepherd should be excluding gays and lesbians and is at fault for not having done so. I understand why Christians reach that conclusion, and why someone who has might not like what I had to say here. I should have fielded the response with more grace--agreed entirely.
On the question of Rowan's strengths and weaknesses I am passing on criticism that seems to me legitimate, and trying to say its a strength of his carried to an extreme, as are many of our weaknesses. Again, contrary to his aggressive caricature of my point, I'm not saying he's nice or holy so it's ok to let a drunk in ministry (neither is Rowan, neither is Rupert Shortt). Everyone agrees some Christians who feel called and whom others have seen to be gifted should nevertheless be kept from ordination for the sake of the least of these because of behavior they've perhaps repented of but not corrected or, in the case of a crime, been appropriately legally punished for. I just didn't think that was a point in question: I make it clearly in the post. Guest's raising of the question I thought closed seemed to me then to be nothing other than an equation of gays with pedophiles. Again, it sounds like I was wrong, and am sorry for that.
When one's words are twisted one does tend to respond defensively. I shouldn't have.
thanks for the discussion
Dear Jason,
Thanks for the posts on Williams. I can tell you, as a minister, that Williams approach to discipline as "graduate seminar" has helped me engage in discipline in a way that demonstrates Christ's self-giving love. Being patient, while bearing witness to the truth, will many times give someone the space to repent - seems that there is a lot of room for the Holy Spirit in this approach. Sadly, there are times when one simply removes oneself from the patient and ongoing conversation and, in a sense, disciplines oneself by ending the conversation. So, I don't find Williams' approach relativistic in the least. As I understand him, he is simply more patient than most.
Post new comment