If last week I posted a few thoughts (with tongue in cheek) about Leo XIV being an Anglican kind of Pope, then this week let's have a go at the converse, A Catholic Kind of Archbishop of Canterbury? But no tongue in cheek.
First, I have noticed some Anglican concerns about how long it is taking to choose the next ABC, with unfavourable comparisons to the seped with which the new Pope was chosen. While there is much to learn from the Catholic church, and, yes, we could, arguably, be a bit quicker, let's acknowledge that it is very unlikely that Anglican (whether in the CofE itself or across the Communion) would ever agree to an electoral body for the next ABC which consisted of:
- only males
- only bishops
- about 80% membership picked by the previous ABC
I think not! We are not going to have A Catholic Kind of Process of Choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury Ever :)
Secondly, it may or may not be a bad thing that a bit of time has elapsed in the Anglican process.
Thirdly, since catholic means universal, we can observe that this time around (due to initiative by Archbishop Welby) there is greater representation of the Anglican Communion in the Crown Nomination Commission put together for the occasion (from 1 to 5 members).
In the past week the process of choosing the five has been completed and it is a delight report that the Reverend Canon Isaac Beech, a New Zealander, a member of Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa, has been chosen to represent Oceania (which, by the way, is not "the South Pacific" but South Pacific plus some of Asia plus North Pacific). See further here.
For a complete overview of where the process is at, see what Andrew Goddard has to say here.
Fourthly, perhaps the bigger "catholic" question about the next ABC is whether the next ABC will have universal reach into and around the Communion, as well as into and around the CofE?
Consider the following issues:
- could we have a female ABC (as many in the CofE would like) v would that work well in wider Communion relationships (noting that some Anglican provinces do not ordain women as bishops)?
- if an English bishop is chosen, will that person connect with the CofE if not appropriately "moderate" v will that person connect with most of the Communion if not explicitly conservative, especially in connection with That Topic?
- what if a non-English (non-Welsh/Scottish/Irish) bishop were chosen, for example, an African bishop was chosen, who then would have greater acceptability to the wider Communion (the vast majority of which is African) v would any non-English bishops, from any part of the world, other than Great Britain and Ireland, be acceptable to the CofE as a whole?
Of course, fifthly, ultimately, the greatest "catholic" question re the new ABC is whether she or he will have ability to enhance unity in the CofE and in the Communion?
Incidentally, the title question to this post has a further aspect: customarily the ABC is successively evangelical ... catholic ... evangelical and it is now the catholic turn!
14 comments:
I read the long article by Goddard and was none the wiser. Perhaps I should have asked AI to take notes. Can you sum the whole process up into a single sentence or short paragraph, Peter? It's so wordy and shifting like sands on Sumner beach after the earthquake. Um...
Someone....some groups?.... appoints 15 members who vote on a new Archbishop? Each vote is equal? A majority....or super majority....or consensus...or what?....results in a new ABC?
I've often heard that the position goes back and forward between an Evangelical and a Catholic, but this isn't mentioned anywhere. Is that actually the case? That would at least make the process clearer.
Hi Mark
In the CofE system a Crown Nominations Commission is formed, including representatives of the wide CofE and of the diocese to whom the bishop will be appointed (or, re the ABC, also with Communion reps). They scout around to see whom they think might be the right person, possibly drawn from a list of people already on a "ready to be bishops" list (not sure what applies when scouting around for an ABC). They recommend two names to the PM who (normally) recommends the King appoint the first name on this list. (Andrew Goddard knows a lot, lot more about this than me).
I am unsure who appoints the members of any CNC, let alone this particular one.
Nor am I sure whether a simple majority suffices to get the name or names on the list to the PM.
As far as I can see, the Communion votes are equal to other votes; but the Communion in total, 5, is not a majority of the Commission.
There may or may not be an official statement re the alternating Catholic/Evangelical approach, but it does explain the sequence from Ramsay onwards: Ramsay, Coggan, Runcie, Carey, Williams, Welby.
Good night +Peter, negotiating all those different scenarios, the new ABC would have to be superhuman or we have to abandon having one person to lead the Anglican Communion… But God???
Thanks Peter. That's a helpful summary. It's also helpful to hear that a bishop of the church isn't super clear on all the details too. In the end, it sounds like - and is, I guess, because of establishment - a sort of governmental process, like the NZ govt trying to find a new head for Oranga Tamariki or something.
Can I flesh out an opposite scenario to the one often advocated and hoped for here, by +Peter and others? I do want to say: I'm not sure this opposite scenario is better, though I don’t think it’s all bad by any stretch, and it might be coming our way whether we like it or not.
The Communion doesn’t hold together. The next ABC is a moderate, lower-case “catholic” who tries to hold together the CofE (that is increasingly dissatisfied with itself and polarized (with considerable progressive voices amongst bishops) with the Communion, but ultimately fails. Or tries to hold it together, then recognizes, like the Methodist Church in America did, that it is better to have an amicable divorce around maturely accepted “irreconcilable differences” that burn out trying to keep an unhappy, conflicted marriage going. The Communion separates or “re-aligns”, like the American Methodists did, between progressives and conservatives. It is painful and complete administrative chaos for a period as the lawyers work out who gets the boat and the dog, etc., as the children work out which of their parents they will live with. But…
The impasse is gone. Magnitudes of energy and thought, and endless listening processes, are gone. Energy is freed up for both sides to become freer, authentic and evangelistic. More remarkably, energy is freed up for each side to enter into new and hopeful ecumenical arrangements. Progressive Methodists and Anglicans and Reformed Churches and even Quakers enter into exciting new partnerships, national, and global communions. Likewise on the other side. Global Protestantism updates and realigns. The old divisions left over from the Reformation are shown to be completely outdated and meaningless, especially to new seekers who couldn’t care less. We move on, ironically, in a more unified place than we began, though the new split is Progressive/Conservative.
I wonder, from the long discussion on an earlier post re the state of the Anglican Communion in the light of all the controversy over same sex blessings, if the divorce has already happened? Witness our own diocese!
I don’t think any choice of the ABC is likely to pull everyone together again. Maybe the best we can hope for is a relatively peaceful transition into new alignments? And Mark has suggested that way forward.
I think my own preference is indeed for a liberation of energy from intractable impasses - impasses, at least, at the governmental level of the church.
But I don't think I want to be in a pure progressive Anglican church or parish, as much as it would suit me very well in many ways. I don't want to be brawling with bishops (!) or priests over whether homosexuals are fundamentally disordered or not, or women can represent Christ and the people at the table, which is why I haven't attended a Roman Catholic Church for the past twenty years. But I also want to be in a church that represents the whole *Body*, in a real and visible way, too.
I tried to write about that recently more in relation to the Catholic (broadly conceived) mass...
https://www.tumblingages.co.nz/blog-2/the-mystery-of-christ
I could just go to Quakers full time, but then I'd miss, I think, more of the breadth and diversity of the Body, including parts that I'd probably rather avoid.
Anglicanism is the middle way, the broad church, the Christian experiment at being a "centre" that "holds" (to paraphrase Yeats). It preserves a difficult but vital Christian testimony. It broke with the Roman Catholic Church, in some ways, to make Catholicism more accessible to the people.
A realignment may well be in the offing, but it will probably be one in which a good number, maybe not a global majority, of Anglicans will want to instinctively find a broad middle to remain in.
I think a good first action would be for the CofE leadership, before doing anything else, to facilitate equality between male and female bishops and dispense with the process of 'flying bishops'. It's over a decade since women bishops were enabled to be appointed, and the time for special concessions is over. Would General Synod support such a move now?
If this could happen then one clutch of problems would disappear. This action would alienate the more extreme conservatives, perhaps akin to the appointment of Gene Robinson in the States years ago, and presumably if they weren't being pandered to, they would leave. That would be a manageable disruption and then the CofE could reassess other issues without the most extreme faction.
In reassessment, perhaps some decisions can be made on matters of sexuality and that might offend some of both conservative *and* liberal members (at the extremes) and again shed some people from CofE - but hopefully you'd have enough folk willing to support a reasonable/willing consensus that you'd still have a committed core of a broad church nature that could settle other issues facing the CofE. Other issues being, just as examples: level of support for the parish network versus new church plants, Independent Safeguarding, church structural reform e.g. to make Synod more inclusive, re-assessment of the role of Archbishops Council, re-setting the relationship with the Anglican Communion.
My thoughts penned this morning, the first time I've tried to write some ideas down after much reading over recent weeks about the CofE!
PS: just noticed in Anglican Ink a 22-May press release from House of Bishops (CofE) with more about women in CofE. Weird language they use! There's an interesting discussion in the Comments re a phrase which had also caught my attention..
"to enable the inclusion and positive treatment of women in the Church, rather than mirroring negative elements of wider culture"
Also, re weird language, one commentator described it as "waves of anodyne pomposity" which made me chuckle (I agree wholeheartedly). Why can't they just communicate normally?
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/house-of-bishops-meeting-may-2025/
Oops - I meant 'Thinking Anglicans'!!!
I like these suggestions, Liz. You should be on the committee appointing the next ABC!
Thinking Anglicans should be renamed Doing the Diocesan Shuffle, as they are forever having articles on which suffragan bishop has resigned or which bishop is bring appointed etc., or which bishop's seat is currently free. Clergy must read it to charter their next career move.
Mark, thanks. I've listened to Rowan Williams this evening and one bit struck me as offering a reasonable basis for what was driving my ideas (which were jogged by what you'd written prior)
RW: "I wince a little bit sometimes when all people talk about is leadership - as if that were the magic bullet - as if once we got leadership sorted everything would fall into place, rather than thinking a bit more about what healthy communities do, and how you draw people in with decision making while still being able to make decisions, all the rest of it. And, I just don't think we're thinking quite hard enough about that."
This was in the Q&A at the end of his address so he was just ad lib! I'll leave a link, long video, 1h30m (I found it riveting).
Truth, faith and politics in a post-truth world: exploring Bonhoeffer today (May 2025)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKQbo4V4c20
Thank you! Bonhoeffer has been on my mind lately too. I think he would have been so disturbed, and not surprised, that one of the most supposedly Christian super powers of the world is moving at pace to fascism - with the backing of a majority of the country's Christians.
Post a Comment