Whatever one's thoughts on Tony Blair, his choice for the new Archbishop of Canterbury is intriguing.

The arch manipulator has appointed a very clever Welshman who, it seems, has no intention of being manipulated.

Even more endearingly, Dr Rowan Williams, who becomes the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury in November, has few inhibitions about bruising the egos of the high and mighty when affirming his guiding principles.

The old clich about the "wind of change" comes to mind immediately. The Anglican Church is to have a turbulent but charming provocateur at its head.

What a change from the worthy but uninspiring Dr George Carey, who is to retire. What a chance to re-ignite religious debate in Britain, to return the church to the centre of national life, to make the cynics think again, to claw back the missing congregations.

Less than a month ago, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, told the General Synod that the Church of England was facing "a time of exile".

His assessment reflected the pessimism of other church leaders. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has already said British society needs to rediscover its soul and Christianity has been all but vanquished in terms of influencing public policy.

So what do we know about this intellectual maverick from Swansea who describes himself as a "hairy Lefty" and almost became a Catholic monk?

Our own Bishop of Lewes, the Right Reverend Wallace Benn, warned of trouble ahead when he dealt with Dr Williams's liberal views on the ordination of active homosexuals in defiance of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

He hoped Dr Williams would be willing to change his mind on some moral issues in a way that is more in line with the teaching of the Bible and the declared position of the Anglican Communion.

A member of that 70-million strong worldwide communion, the Archbishop of Uganda, said in Africa, homosexuality was a sin. He feared if Dr Williams did not change his mind, there would be problems and divisions.

I do not get the impression Dr Williams can be pressured to change his fundamental beliefs.

Equally contentiously, he supports the ordination of women. He has already embarrassed Tony Blair by criticising the immorality of the war in Afghanistan and will not back any attack on Iraq unless the United Nations concurs.

And hugely importantly, he would prefer a disestablished Church of England, severing the link between church and state.

The Queen would be removed from her role as supreme governor and Tony Blair would be taken out of the picture.

However, in spite of these idealistic stances, Dr Williams seems unwilling to commit himself on whether he would remarry the Prince of Wales.

He has restricted himself to the anodyne comment that Prince Charles would not want to be treated differently from any other member of the Anglican Church.

Is that a yes or a no?