Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Choosing an archbishop

Why should the appointment of Rowan Williams' successor be left to a faceless committee?

By Nelson Jones Published 13 September 2011 13:15

If Rowan Williams resigns as Archbishop of Canterbury next year, possibly to take up a professorship in Cambridge, there will be intense speculation as to the identity of his successor. Two facts are unlikely to change, however. Firstly, even if the General Synod passes the necessary rule-change to allow the appointment of female bishops, the next Archbishop will be a man. Second, ordinary members of the Church of England will have very little say in the matter.

The process of choosing bishops and archbishops of the Established church is convoluted and arcane, but its underlying philosophy (like much in Britain) seems to be that some matters are too important to be left to the vagaries of a democratic process. Technically, senior posts in the Church of England are appointed by the Queen, in her capacity as Supreme Governor and Defender of the Faith, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister (who isn't required to have any religious affiliations at all). Some recent prime ministers, including Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, are rumoured to have intervened in the selection process. These days, however, the practice of submitting two alternative names to Downing Street has been superseded, which means that bishops and archbishops are now effectively chosen by an obscure committee.

The Crown Nominations Commission, as it is called, has some members elected by the General Synod, but that gives it only an indirect legitimacy. It deliberates in secret and never divulges details of its discussions. Some observers suspect that an informal "Buggins' turn" system operates, with unofficial quotas for liberal, Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical bishops and Canterbury itself rotating. (Thus Rowan Williams was a throwback to the ceremonious fence-sitting of Robert Runcie after the somewhat more acerbic tenure of George Carey.) But this is speculation. All we can really say is that, as with the Conservative party in the days of the Magic Circle, soundings are taken and a consensus emerges.

Nowhere else in the field of archiepiscopal appointments is so much power surrendered by so many to so few. Elsewhere in the Anglican communion, bishops are chosen by diocesan synods or, in the case of primates, by national electoral colleges. When he became Archbishop of Wales, Rowan Williams was openly elected by a 42-member electoral college including both lay and ordained members.

The Vatican has little reputation as a haven of democracy, yet the Pope is elected by his fellow cardinals, of whom there are well over a hundred. The process is private, the cardinals being confined for the duration <i>con clave</i> to the Sistine Chapel and its adjacent corridors. But it is, at least, an election. One of the most transparent and progressive systems, surprisingly enough, is that employed by the Russian Orthodox Church in choosing its patriarch. The patriarch is elected in a two-stage process by a special session of the church's synod, with laity and clergy taking their full part. Votes are cast by secret ballot. The current patriarch, Kirill, received 508 votes in his election in January 2009.

The adoption of a similar system by the Church of England - at least for the election of the two archbishops - would have several benefits. It would increase the likelihood of choosing primates with popular appeal. It would make the church look less like an anachronistic prop of the establishment and give its leader greater authority to speak on behalf of its members. It would increase public interest in the church as an institution to have candidates for the top job campaigning openly for votes. Above all, it would be better in principle. Nor would a democratic system threaten the C of E's historic links to the state. The formal appointment could still be made by the Queen, acting on behalf of God, just as she formally appoints the prime minister by rubber-stamping the choice of the voters in a general election.

These days, with the recession and its own mismanagement decimating the Church of England's investment portfolio, rank and file Anglicans are being asked to contribute ever more money to keep the show on the road. Is it reasonable to continue to exclude them from any say in the appointment of their spiritual leader?

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Rowan Williams

More from Nelson Jones

24 comments

Wed, 2011-09-14 23:41 — Nixon is Lord (not verified)

Why cling to establishment anyway? What's the rationale behind it? Even countries with much higher levels of religious practice (Poland, Romania, Portugal, Ireland) have no official churches. Why bother? Unless you're clinging to a few scraps of Establishment in hope of not drifting further into irrelevance.
But you wouldn't be that pitiful, would you?

Thu, 2011-09-15 00:32 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Personally I can't see the point in going backwards. If the man wants to pursue something academically surely he can do so without reverting to some pretentious professional position in some poxy university. He won't or perhaps shouldn't be able to afford it anyway, I daresay.

Better to get into real life long learning I should say, ie education otherwise than in some institutionalised monument to the latest executive trends and fads. Surely the position of archbishop this man enjoys contains the capacity and capability to learn just about anything ad lib ( see Parliament as it happens), rather than get embroiled in the debt culture that seems to be modern so-called higher education. Has he no spare time? Or volition?

Remember Jesus in the temple (of true knowledge) that is His fathers house? Even though God's house has many mansions ( ie rooms for just about anyone) Jesus still overturns the stalls of the buyers and the sellers that publicly spoil everyones work/life balance, so rudely.

Thu, 2011-09-15 01:19 — Dickie1

I don't know how they should elect a new Arch-Bishop, but I think it is a shame Rowan Williams is going. Don't know if he's in the running for it but John Sentamu is the man I would like to see take the position.

Thu, 2011-09-15 01:22 — Dickie1

Err... perhaps I have exposed my ignorance - he already is an Archbishop.

Doh!

Tue, 2011-09-13 22:53 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

They've approached, but I said I'd do it only if I get a million quid bonus at Christmas and continue to remain anonymous.

Thu, 2011-09-15 09:40 — swatantra nandanwar

ABC Sentanu would almost certainly bring the House down.
The fact is if there were a separation of Church from State we would lose the prescence of Clergy in the Lords, and that would be a reat pity.

Thu, 2012-02-02 18:10 — Benedict

Thu, 2011-09-22 22:49 — Nixon is Lord (not verified)

Only the Vatican, Iran and you have clergy with the right to enter government as clergy.
Are you going to cling to this idiocy like you stuck with claiming your kings/queens ruled France (until 1801), centuries after there was any reality to the claim?
Make you feel special and "It's and English thing; you foreigners wouldn't understand"?
Why not just draw a name out of a hat? You'd probably get more public interest-you certainly couldn't get less interest than you have now.

Wed, 2011-09-14 09:38 — The Twurch of England (not verified)

Hi Nelson,

Less democracy, more an exercise in Crowd Sourcing. Can we predict now what the outcome will be in a year's time.

We suspect that your second para above demonstrates a slight lack of engagement with Anglican polity. The ABC has particular powers which can be used to either shape and control the direction of the Anglican Communion, or alternatively can be not used to let things take their own course. Of course, if you want to have someone with REAL power you should probably talk to the ABC's boss, who happens to be my boss and even your boss. We're currently trying to get him on Twitter - that would be a huge coup (and possibly signal the end of the world).

And no, we don't take ourselves terribly seriously, but thanks for asking.

Wed, 2011-09-14 10:26 — swatantra nandanwar

What are the odds on there being a BAME ABC? Or a woman? Isn't it about time we had a bit more equality in the C 0f E, and the electoral process being made more transparent? With the greater proportion of the flock being in Africa and the East, the odds could well be reduced.

Wed, 2011-09-14 13:19 — The Twurch of England (not verified)

If you want a female ABC I'm afraid you'll need to go back to the rulebook and see where you're going wrong. As for a BAME candidate, rumour has it that Michael Nazir-Ali was the number 2 candidate last time round. Don't fancy his chances this time (seeing as he's effectively retired from CofE ministry).

Wed, 2011-09-14 13:36 — swatantra nandanwar

The Rulebook shold be throw out of the window on this particular issue.
Nazir Ali was a conservative Anglican an would have been wholly unsuitable. There is of course Sentanu, but he is a self publicist and goes in for gimmicks.
The Church needs more radicalism like Ramsey provided,or look overseas for one.

Wed, 2011-09-14 15:31 — Robert Taggart

Whoever / however...
The priority for the next Bish should be disestablishment.
No, really, as long as this institution continues to be perceived as a branch of the state it will continue to decline (if it can decline any further ?). It should regard disestablishment as liberating not threatening.
FOR GODS SAKE !

Wed, 2011-09-14 15:42 — swatantra nandanwar

I think I would be in the antidisestablishmentarism camp.
Basically the UK is a Christian country and is likly to stay that way, despite multiculturalism and multifaiths, on paper that is anyway.
I think I would prefer to abolish the Monarchy rather than the Church, and these days the Church is at arms length from the State anyway.

Tue, 2011-09-13 13:54 — swatantra nandanwar

I would welcome the Russian Orthodox System as the fairest and we could also have some Open Primaries and Debates as well rather like the Great NS Lab Leadership Debates.
I can guarantee that the memserhip of the C of E would shoot up dramatically as more of the laity are invited to engage. Church attendance would go up, Bible sales up and Church Youth Clubs up.

Sun, 2011-09-18 12:39 — john woods (not verified)

Who cares? The Church of England has about as much relevance as the American Communist Party. 2% of the population are practising Anglicans. The idea that such a moribund organisation should have the right to send its representatives into the national parliament just shows what a peculiar country this is. Anglicanism is not really a proper religion: it's a bit like Shintoism in Japan: something the Establishment theoretically believe in but don't really. How many working class people have ever entered an Anglican church in the last two centuries?

Wed, 2011-09-14 16:51 — Robert Taggart

@swa/nan.
Why not abolish both ?
An independent, democratic, secular, republic of England (time to throw-off the celtic 'baggage' too !).
Oh, swa/nan, can one assume you to be a 'by-product' of empire / commonwealth ? We may not have it in our power to abolish the commonwealth, but, we could at least leave it !

Tue, 2011-09-13 16:29 — AJS (not verified)

Go on, seriously. Who gives a flying one anymore about a bunch of grown men living in the past with their imaginary friend?

Tue, 2011-09-13 16:36 — earlydawn

@AJS: If it bothers you that much, why did you read a column about it?
I'm not in the slightest bit interested in Rugby, but I don't turn up on comment threads to mock those who do. And these days, Rugby players are far more prominently in the public consciousness than almost any archbishop, save, perhaps Rowan himself.

Wed, 2011-09-14 18:42 — PikeyMikey (not verified)

Perhaps the Windsors could franchise the CoE. Instead of churches we could have a chain of fast faith outlets and drive thru's.

Tue, 2011-09-13 17:11 — The Twurch of England (not verified)

We're already beating you to it with a nice exercise in Democracy / Crowd Sourcing. Come and vote for who you think should be the next ABC at http://www.twurchofengland.org.uk/2011/09/12/vote-for-the-next-archbisho...

Wed, 2011-09-14 19:22 — Left Is Forward (not verified)

After roughly five centuries of hanging out with the fairies and imaginary men, isn't it time Britain grew up a bit?

Or actually, judging from the current levels of church attendance, perhaps it has.

Time the whole charade was abolished.

Tue, 2011-09-13 17:22 — swatantra nandanwar

Good acronym ABC. Should catch on.
And, using internet, mobile and social media voting in the Archbishop Stakes. Should appeal to younger members of the C of E.

Tue, 2011-09-13 18:13 — Nelson Jones1

That's not an exercise in democracy, Twurch. That's an opinion poll. An exercise in democracy would be where it made a difference.

Really, Anglicans should be embarrassed that their leader is chosen in such an opaque manner. But then again, perhaps it suits them. Because if the ABC isn't democratically accountable there's no reason to take any notice of what he says. So he becomes almost totally powerless, and when he says something interesting or controversial people can look at their feet and say "nothing to do with me."