Rowan Williams' Crucial Advice to Archbishop Sarah Mullally

The Architect of Ambiguity: Rowan Williams, Sarah Mullally, and the Inheritance of Non-Decision

There are moments in the life of institutions when politeness must yield to clarity, and courtesy to truth. The recent intervention in The Spectator by Rowan Williams—ostensibly a set of reflections on the demands facing the next Archbishop of Canterbury—is, in fact, something far more pointed. It is a letter addressed, with studied discretion, to Sarah Mullally, newly enthroned on 25 March 2026, newly burdened, and already standing at the edge of a precipice her predecessors helped to carve.¹

One might almost admire the delicacy of it. No name in the title. No finger explicitly pointed. No admission of complicity. And yet, like a well-delivered sermon that never quite names its subject, the target is unmistakable. Mullally has been in office scarcely a week, and already the former Archbishop emerges to explain—gently, of course—what must now be done.

The difficulty is not that the advice is wrong. It is that it arrives trailing history behind it—and is prompted by a text in which Williams himself criticises the Church’s drift into “managerial” leadership, warning that it has become hesitant to articulate binding doctrinal positions or to act decisively where unity is at stake.²

A Mandate Delivered After the Fact
Mullally does not assume office in a moment of quiet continuity. She inherits a Church that has spent the better part of two decades persuading itself that disagreement is a form of unity, that process is a substitute for judgment, and that time, if given sufficient indulgence, will solve problems that courage declined to confront. The closing years of Justin Welby did not inaugurate this condition; they merely exposed it. The authorisation of Prayers of Love and Faith by the Church of England’s General Synod in February 2023—permitting the blessing of same-sex couples without formally altering doctrine—did not create division within the Anglican Communion; it codified an already existing divergence between provinces.³

The Global South, representing a numerical majority within Anglicanism, responded not merely with protest but with structural realignment. In April 2023, the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches declared that it no longer recognised the Archbishop of Canterbury as the “first among equals” and called for a “reset” of Communion leadership structures.⁴ Several primates, including those of Nigeria and Uganda, formally impaired or severed relations with the Church of England over the issue.⁵ The Archbishop of Canterbury, once primus inter pares, now risks becoming something closer to primus inter relictos—the first among those left behind.

It is into this landscape that Williams speaks, urging clarity, courage, and the willingness to accept the cost of truth. One is tempted to ask: why now? Or more precisely: why not then?

The Memory of Decisions Not Taken
For the present crisis did not emerge spontaneously. It was shaped—carefully, patiently, even elegantly—through a series of decisions in which the decisive element was consistently absent. This is precisely the “managerial” instinct Williams now critiques—yet here it appears not as theory, but as record.

When Gene Robinson was consecrated in November 2003, the presenting issue—whether a man in a same-sex relationship could be admitted to the episcopate—was recognised across the Communion as a test of doctrinal coherence. The response, embodied in the Windsor Report (October 2004), recommended that the Episcopal Church express “regret” (§134) and proposed moratoria on further consecrations and public rites of blessing (§144), but imposed no sanctions and established no enforcement mechanism.⁶ The Episcopal Church proceeded: in 2006 electing Katharine Jefferts Schori, and in 2009 authorising same-sex blessings (General Convention Resolution C056).⁷ The absence of discipline did not preserve unity; it normalised divergence.

When unity visibly strained, the proposed remedy—the Anglican Covenant (final text 2009)—offered a framework for accountability centred on “relational consequences,” yet without juridical authority or binding enforcement.⁸ When the dioceses of the Church of England voted in 2011–2012, the Covenant failed to secure sufficient support, and the General Synod allowed it to lapse in November 2012.⁹ The Church declined to adopt even a minimal mechanism of internal discipline.

When the bishops of the Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference 2008, Williams replaced traditional resolutions with “indaba” processes—structured discussions explicitly designed not to produce binding decisions.¹⁰ Over 200 bishops, largely from the Global South, boycotted the conference, instead attending GAFCON in Jerusalem (June 2008), which issued the Jerusalem Declaration affirming traditional doctrine and implicitly rejecting Lambeth’s non-decisional approach.¹¹

And so the pattern fixed itself: when clarity was required, conversation was offered; when judgment was necessary, process intervened; when authority might have been exercised, it was deferred.

The Elegance of Evasion
It would be unjust to suggest that this was incompetence. On the contrary, it was a form of governance—subtle, intellectually refined, and deeply attuned to the anxieties of late modernity. Williams did not so much fail to decide as refuse the conditions under which decision becomes possible. Doctrine was not denied; it was held in suspension. Authority was not abolished; it was reframed as facilitation. The Church became, in his own language, a community of discernment.

One must grant the attractiveness of this vision. It is humane, irenic, and exquisitely civilised. It is also, in practice, incapable of resolving disputes in which the parties no longer share a common understanding of truth.

A Church that defines itself as a conversation will eventually discover that conversations, however extended, do not adjudicate.

The Public Voice That Could Not Speak Plainly
The same pattern emerged beyond the internal life of the Church. The 2008 lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice, in which Williams suggested that “some accommodation of sharia law… seems unavoidable,” was not a lapse but a revelation.¹² It displayed, in public, the same instinct that governed ecclesial affairs: an attraction to complexity that resisted clarity. The reaction—from Gordon Brown and others—was swift and unequivocal: Downing Street immediately reaffirmed that “there is only one law in this country, and that is the law of the land”; the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, rejected the notion of parallel legal systems while clarifying the limited scope of arbitration; and senior political figures across parties criticised the remarks as constitutionally confused.¹³

Williams’s subsequent clarification did little to dispel the impression created. Authority had spoken—but without clarity sufficient to command assent.

Authority, after all, is not merely the capacity to speak. It is the capacity to be understood.

The Cost of Reluctance
Perhaps the most sobering reflection came later, when Williams acknowledged before the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that the Church had developed an “over-optimistic” and insufficiently critical culture regarding sexual conduct, contributing to failures in addressing abuse.¹⁴ Here the matter passes from ecclesiology to consequence. A refusal to define is not an abstract posture; it shapes institutional behaviour. If one hesitates to say what is wrong, one will hesitate to act when wrong is done.

The line from ambiguity to inaction is not theoretical. It is historical.

Advice Given to a Successor Already Bound
And now, with Mullally enthroned, Williams calls for clarity. He urges her to speak plainly, to accept division if necessary, to prefer truth to unity. It is, as advice, impeccable. It is also, as timing, inescapably revealing.

For Mullally has not been chosen as a breaker of settlements but as a keeper of them. Her appointment was widely understood as a turn toward stability—a steady hand after turbulence, a figure capable of holding together what remains. And Williams, with the courtesy of one who knows the office intimately, suggests that what remains may not be holdable.

This is the heart of the matter.

A Choice No Longer Avoidable
Mullally faces a choice that her predecessors, including Williams, consistently deferred. It is not whether to manage disagreement, but whether to resolve it. To speak clearly on contested questions is to risk formalising division; to refuse to speak is to continue the slow dissolution already underway.

The age of ambiguity has not preserved unity. It has postponed its fracture.

And so the advice, however belated, carries a certain austere honesty. It acknowledges—without quite confessing—that the methods of the past have reached their limit. The question is whether the institution shaped by those methods retains the capacity to act differently.

Conclusion: The Inheritance of Evasion
There is, in all this, a distinctly English quality: the preference for compromise, the avoidance of rupture, the hope that disagreement might be managed indefinitely through civility and time. It is a noble instinct in politics, a dangerous one in theology.

For theology, at its root, concerns truth. And truth, unlike committees, does not indefinitely defer.

Williams now sees this, or at least says he does. Mullally must now decide whether seeing is enough.

Church of England, “The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally becomes 106th Archbishop of Canterbury,” Canterbury Cathedral, 25 March 2026.
The Spectator, Rowan Williams, “My advice for the new Archbishop of Canterbury,” April 2026.
Church of England General Synod, February 2023 (Prayers of Love and Faith).
Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches, Kigali Communiqué, April 2023.
Statements from the Anglican provinces of Nigeria and Uganda, 2023.
Windsor Report, §§134, 144.
Episcopal Church, General Convention 2009, Resolution C056; election of Katharine Jefferts Schori (2006).
Anglican Covenant (2009), Section 4.
Church of England diocesan synod votes (2011–2012); General Synod, November 2012.
Lambeth Conference 2008 Design Group papers on the “indaba” process.
GAFCON, Jerusalem Declaration, 29 June 2008.
Rowan Williams, “Civil and Religious Law in England: A Religious Perspective,” Royal Courts of Justice, 7 February 2008.
Statements by Gordon Brown and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, February 2008.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, Public Hearing Transcript, 14 March 2018.

LATEST ARTICLES

Today’s Mass: July 24 St St Lewinna V&MJuly 24, 2026
St Lewinna, Virgin and Martyr, is commemorated alongside St James the Great’s Vigil. Considered a martyr of early South Saxon Christians, her death is likely around AD 670 amid pagan resistance. Her relics were later moved to St Andrew’s Church, with Alfriston being a possible location, highlighting her enduring legacy in Christian history.
Today’s Mass: July 23 St Apollinaris of RavennaJuly 23, 2026
St. Apollinaris was the disciple of St. Peter, who preached the Gospel at Ravenna. He was one of the first great martyrs of the church. He was made Bishop of Ravenna by the Apostle himself. The miracles he wrought there soon attracted official attention, for they and his preaching won many converts to the Faith, while at the same time bringing upon him the fury of the idolaters, who beat him cruelly and drove him from the city.
Sermon for St. ApollinarisJuly 23, 2026
Today marks the feast of St. Apollinaris, an early Christian martyr linked to Ravenna. His martyrdom’s dating is debated, with implications for Ravenna’s historical significance. St. Peter’s epistle to Asia Minor warned Christians of persecution and redefined leadership through service, urging humility and self-sacrifice, a lesson relevant in today’s church context.
Chifeng, Écône and Rome’s Uneven Measure of Ecclesial CommunionJuly 22, 2026
The ecclesial dynamics between Rome and the Chinese Catholic Church reveal a complex relationship. While Pope Leo XIV’s endorsement of Bishop Chang’s ordination at Chifeng affirms canonical legitimacy, it simultaneously highlights issues with the state-controlled ecclesiastical framework, contrasting sharply with the disobedient yet doctrinally consistent actions of the Society of Saint Pius X at Écône.
Today’s Mass: July 22 St Mary MagdaleneJuly 22, 2026
Saint Mary Magdalene, originating from Magdala, is a significant figure in Christianity, mentioned in the New Testament as a follower of Christ who witnessed His crucifixion and resurrection. Controversies surround her identity with Mary of Bethany and the “sinner” cited in Luke. Traditions suggest her eventual retreat to Ephesus.