CAMBRIDGE: THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S UNFORTUNATE SERMON

THE TIMES EDITORIAL April 21, 2004

The appointment of Rowan Williams as the Archbishop of Canterbury two years ago initially appeared a positive, even inspired, development.

He came to his post with a reputation as a deep thinker, yet with a useful flair for the popular touch. Here was a man equally comfortable reflecting on the symbolism of the Gospels and the parables to be drawn from the likes of The Simpsons. He seemed to be capable of making Christianity accessible and relevant once again to those who had come to find it dull, distant or inconsequential. His elevation to the See of Canterbury was thus widely welcomed.

On the basis of his sermon in Cambridge yesterday, however, Dr Williams produced a false prospectus of Shell-like proportions. Politics fascinates him, understandably, but he seems unaware of the danger of striding, in his idiosyncratic way, into the middle of political controversies.

Although billed as a series of thoughts about Christianity, democracy and obedience, his address rambled through the decision to participate in the war in Iraq, the failure of the Government to secure "attention" for its actions and the possible need for civil disobedience to prevent such events from occurring in the future. For this politicised Archbishop, the "Gang of Four" plainly consists of a group other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

This was not a particularly coherent attempt to borrow a pulpit for political purposes. Among the many sentences whose purpose we may have to wait until the next life to ascertain was the following: "Government of whatever kind restores lost trust above all by its willingness to attend to what lies beyond the urgency of asserting control and retaining visible and simple initiative, by patient accountability and the freedom to think again, even to admit error or miscalculation."

He went on, perhaps to clarify, "Happy the person or the government that can simply find the right, the inevitable gesture that fully fits the truth of circumstances as gracefully as the scoring of a goal".

What does any of this mean? We think it might have been "Blair should apologise for overthrowing Saddam Hussein", but there may be other interpretations. Perhaps it was a vision of the Chelsea game last night. But whatever the real meaning, the word "gobbledegook" was invented for such a moment. It would surely have been clearer in Hebrew, Greek or Latin than in English. If it had been in Dr Williams's hands, there would not have been Ten Commandments but some 716 anguished suggestions.

The Archbishop spoke yesterday about the "trivialisation of democratic government". It is the trivialisation of his office that Anglicans should be concerned about.