Like this? Share it on social media. Join our monthly e-newsletter to keep up to date with our latest research and events. And check out our Friends Programme to find out how you can help our work.
Last week, Justin Welby was confirmed as Archbishop of Canterbury.
He takes over from Rowan Williams, internationally known and widely loved as a serious thinker who led the church faithfully, if not always easily, through a decade of very choppy waters. By returning to academic life - as Master of Magdalene College in Cambridge, no less - he underscores the way he has been publicly perceived: as Theologian-in-Chief. His writings were influential both before and during his time as Archbishop. Often dense, but always rewarding, Williams's theology has been some of the most central in Anglican thought.
However, this academic background and depth of learning are unusual among Archbishops of Canterbury. The last one who came close was Archbishop Temple in the 1940s. This is not to say that more recent Archbishops have been theological dunces. George Carey had a doctorate and taught in theological colleges, eventually becoming Master of Trinity College in Bristol. Robert Runcie before him spent time as principal of Cuddesdon Theological College in Oxford. But neither was seen as a leading theologian in the same way that Williams has been.
This unusual aspect of William's episcopate has had an interesting side-effect. Some have found his obvious intellect off-putting, seeing too much ambiguity and even contradiction in his public statements. But most have reacted with respect and admiration, even when they find themselves unable to engage with the ideas. I was interested to be part of a popular radio phone-in around the time of his resignation, and to listen to the reactions of many who declared that they had no contact with the church except through the media. They were obviously a self-selecting group, but the sheer number of those who rang in to express warm thanks to a man who was widely perceived as thoughtful and decent was striking. These were not the commentariat or academics - who have been swift to criticise - but those whom I suspect Williams would have seen as his real constituency.
How will things be different, both for the church and for the wider culture, with the new Archbishop, Justin Welby? On first glance, there is less theological depth. His degree at Cambridge was in law and history, and he spent his time before ordination working in business for an oil company. He is clearly highly intelligent but the only writing he has published is a short booklet entitled Can Companies Sin?, based on his thesis during ordination training, and a contribution to a volume on church organisation. These are serious contributions, and his authority in the area of business ethics area has led him to being a prominent part of the commission on banking reform in Parliament. And yet, for all their thoughtfulness, these pieces are not straightforwardly theological: Can Companies Sin? is clear, astute and philosophically literate, but contains only two short references to a biblical conception of corporate accountability.
What we do not have in this new Archbishop is another Theologian-in-Chief. Instead, he looks to be in the model of earlier archbishops - bright and capable, but having neither the time nor the inclination to write theological treatises alongside their roles as Dean and Bishop.
Welby's historic connection to Holy Trinity Brompton bears this out. This large charismatic-evangelical church - the originator of the Alpha program - is known for its commitment to practical theology. This doesn't mean ill-considered theology (it has both set up St Paul's Theological Centre and helped establish St Mellitus College), but rather an emphasis on vocational, on-the-job training with a focus on mission rather than more abstract, conceptual study. It doesn't represent a less theological tradition, but certainly a less academic one.
This intelligent, highly capable but decidedly more practical Archbishop takes over at a time where some - most vocally, Sarah Coakley - are decrying the collapse in Anglican theology. Writing after the women bishops vote in the Synod, she despaired of the "current theological amnesia and confusion which is preventing [the Anglican Church] from thinking straight, let alone extending its honourable and distinctive traditions of ecclesiology to meet this new challenge."
The need for good theology is indeed pressing in the Church of England, but I wonder whether it is in fact more pressing now than it has been before. Does not each generation think its own crises more serious than the last? It is also not clear that good Anglican theology need necessarily to originate from the Archbishop. If there is serious thinking going on in the universities and theological colleges from which he can draw (and that really is a separate question) then perhaps there is nothing to fear from losing the role of Theologian-in-Chief.
I suspect that Rowan Williams is loved as much for his character, his evident humility and kindness, as he is for his intelligence. If the new Archbishop shows the same character he should receive equal affection from the wider population, whether or not he demonstrates a more developed and codified theology. Conversely, the leadership and logistical challenges facing the Church of England - from the consecration of women bishops to declining church attendance and consequent strain on finances - may be better faced by someone with a more practical bent.
As the Pope steps down due to ill health, we might see an implicit acknowledgement that running a global church in an instant information age requires, certainly, spiritual and theological leadership, but also character and that trait not often seen in our very best theologians - canniness.
Elizabeth Oldfield is Director of Theos | @TheosElizabeth
This blog originally appeared on www.abc.net.au
Image by Theos.
