The Arch-Druid of Canterbury

When Williams then spoke of the meaning of the role and mission of the pope of Rome, it was very evident that he conceded a unique place to the pope of Rome within the “universal Church” (which of course is not the true universal Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, but the many false “churches” worldwide).  He said: “Christians have very diverse views about the nature of the vocation that belongs to the See of Rome.  Yet, as Your Holiness’s great predecessor [John Paul II] reminded us all in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, we must learn to reflect together on how the historic ministry of the Roman Church and its chief pastor may speak to the Church catholic – East and West, global north and global south – of the authority of Christ and his apostles to build up the Body in love; how it may be realised as a ministry of patience and reverence towards all, a ministry of creative love and self-giving that leads us all into the same path of seeking not our own comfort or profit but the good of the entire human community and the glory of God the creator and redeemer.”[31]

Cutting through all the sweet-talk, what Williams was saying was that the role of the Roman Catholic institution and its pope is a very special one, and unique.  And his words were well understood by Roman Catholic journalist, Robert Moynihan, who said: “Of course, Williams is not saying here that he and his fellow Anglicans will recognize without qualification the Bishop of Rome’s ministry as the head of the Christian Church.  But… he is clearly linking the two concepts of ‘the Roman church and its pastor’ (that is, the Pope) and ‘a ministry… towards all’ (that is, a universal ministry).  The implicit suggestion is that, for Williams, there is, in fact, a mission ‘towards all’ which must be carried out by ‘the Roman church and its chief pastor.’”[32] Williams was opening the door towards some as-yet undefined submission to the See of Rome as time goes by.

And even though Benedict was in the UK to beatify John Henry Newman, an Anglican who converted to Rome and who did such damage to Anglicanism and such good work for Rome, Williams managed to speak well of the man, saying Newman “decided that he must follow his conscience and seek his future in serving God in communion with the See of Rome”.[33]  Even though Benedict was there to triumphantly rub the nose of Anglicanism in the dirt, Williams spoke meekly of Newman’s “conscience” and of “serving God in communion with” Rome!  One does not hear Romish bishops or archbishops speaking of ex-Papists as “following their conscience and seeking their future” in Protestant churches.  They are never that generous, that magnanimous.  The generosity and magnanimity are always from the non-Papist side.

We can be sure of this: Rowan Williams was the perfect choice, as far as the Jesuit Order was concerned, for the position at that time.  And during his decade in office he did immense damage to what was left of Anglicanism.  And that is precisely what they wanted.

Other Unbiblical, Anti-Christian Statements by Williams

In 2006, Williams denounced the biblical teaching of creationism.[34]

In 2008, Williams came under fire for saying that it “seems unavoidable” that aspects of Islamic sharia law would be incorporated into British law.  He suggested Britain should adopt aspects of Sharia law to appease Muslims![35]  What kind of a “Christian” speaks thus of vile, vicious, murderous Islamic law?  Not a true Christian, for sure!

In 2009 Rowan Williams made the statement that God was “pretty useless” on September 11, 2001, when the huge terrorist attack on New York’s twin towers occurred![36]  What kind of God, then, did Williams worship?  Certainly not the sovereign, almighty God of the Bible!  And yet millions of people think Rowan Williams is a Christian, and that he heads a Christian church!  The man’s theology, no less than his deeds, reveals him to be an outright heretic, unregenerate, utterly spiritually blind to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Williams Defends His Record in Office

When Williams announced that he would retire in 2012, he defended his record after a decade in office.  Asked if he had left the Anglican “Church” in a worse state than he found it, he replied, “I don’t think so.  There is no golden age in Christian history when you might think, ‘Oh it was relatively problem free then’ – I don’t think that’s true.  When I’ve got problems I think, ‘At least it isn’t the fourth century, at least it isn’t the seventeenth century’.” [37]

It is true that no age in Christian history has ever been free of problems.  But the question was not about whether or not there were problems during his period in office.  The question was whether or not he had left Anglicanism in a worse state that he found it.  Anglicanism was in an appalling state anyway, long before Williams took office; but the fact remains that under his leadership it sunk even further.  Much, much further.  And the cold, hard truth is that Rowan Williams himself was responsible for much of this  collapse.  The problems of which he spoke were to such a large extent aggravated by his period in office!  He did nothing to improve things, but a whole lot to make them far worse.