One often reads that the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by His Majesty the King, or nominated by the prime minister, or sometimes even elected by the canons of Canterbury Cathedral. Each statement is true in a sense, but in England things are seldom what they seem: when change is effected, outward continuity is often maintained. Older systems remain in place as formalities, masking how things really work. Exactly this has happened with the choosing of archbishops — and diocesan bishops generally.
Historically, diocesan bishops were elected. The canons of the cathedral came to be the electors. But in the Middle Ages (unless the Pope made a direct appointment) the king instructed the cathedral chapter whom to elect. Henry VIII formalized that system (minus papal involvement) in the Appointment of Bishops Act 1533. The relevant provisions are still in force, though the penalty for not electing the Crown’s nominee has been abolished.
The monarch increasingly nominated bishops on the prime minister’s advice: the king is now bound by convention to accept such formal advice. From 1976, prime ministers nominated only someone proposed by a national church body, now called the Crown Nominations Commission; since 2007, prime ministers always nominate their preferred candidate. Thus, the church now makes the choice: the prime minister, the sovereign, and the cathedral’s college of canons formally enact it. And there are further formal processes whereby the chosen candidate becomes the bishop.
Contrary to what is often claimed, the Church of England’s diocesan bishops are not appointed but elected, by a two-thirds majority in a secret ballot, the Crown Nominations Commission being the (admittedly rather small) electoral college. The commission’s composition when choosing an Archbishop of Canterbury, laid down by standing orders of the General Synod, reflects the archbishop’s many roles. The archbishop is:
- Primate (bishop of the first see) of All England,
- metropolitan of the Province of Canterbury (with metropolitical jurisdiction over its 30 dioceses),
- bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury (now run by a suffragan, the Bishop of Dover),
- joint president (with the Archbishop of York) of the General Synod and of the Archbishops’ Council (its executive),
- chairman of the House of Bishops,
- a president of Churches Together in England,
- a member of the House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament),
- a privy counsellor,
- in England and Wales, first in precedence after the Royal Family (the prime minister is fifth).
Internationally, the See of Canterbury has historically been a focus of unity for the Anglican Communion: the archbishop convenes its Lambeth Conference of bishops and its Primates’ Meeting.
The commission will have 17 voting members:
- In the chair, a lay communicant member of the Church of England, usually a public figure, appointed by the prime minister after consultation;
- a bishop from the Province of Canterbury elected by the House of Bishops;
- the Archbishop of York or (if he chooses not to serve, which enables him to be considered) a second bishop elected by the House of Bishops;
- for the first time, five people, one from each of the Anglican Communion’s five regions, chosen by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council; they must include at least one primate, one priest or deacon, and one layperson; at least two of them must be male, two female, and three of “Global Majority Heritage”;
- for the first time, just three people elected by and from the Diocese of Canterbury’s Vacancy in See Committee (instead of the six elected for other dioceses and previously for Canterbury);
- six members, three clergy and three lay, elected by and from the General Synod’s House of Clergy and House of Laity. (These are elected, for five-year terms, as pairs who decide between themselves or by lot which of them serves for each vacancy.)
Thus, 71 percent of the voting members will be from England and 29 percent from elsewhere in the Anglican Communion; 47 percent will represent the Church of England’s national structures, while 18 percent will represent the Diocese of Canterbury (a diocese of predominantly liberal tradition covering half a county in the far southeast of England, where the archbishop’s practical involvement is largely limited to weekend visits). How well do these proportions reflect the balance of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s responsibilities? It is easy to see how a bishop whose views differ significantly from the balance of opinion within the General Synod and the (largely elected) Archbishops’ Council might be elected.
The commission will have before it a statement of the Diocese of Canterbury’s needs, prepared by its Vacancy in See Committee, and reports by the secretaries on private and public consultations undertaken nationally and internationally. The public will be invited to submit opinions and suggest names. Establishing the Commission’s membership, undertaking consultations, and preparing statements and reports will all take some time. Only when this is all complete can the commission begin its work.
People cannot apply to be bishops or “stand for election.” They can suggest themselves or others, but only the commission’s members (voting and non-voting) can put names on its agenda for consideration. The secretaries must ensure that the commission has sufficient information about all whom it considers. In practice, this requires their cooperation, which in turn means that people can rule themselves out: the commission limits its choice to those willing to participate in the process. Some think this unfortunate. Might not the person whom God is calling be someone reluctant to compete for an unsought role, but who would accept a definitive vocation from the church, communicated by the prime minister?
The commission’s policy of interviewing those shortlisted is similarly a mixed blessing. Is the person whom God is calling inevitably among those willing to be interviewed? For practical reasons, only four or five can be interviewed, which may narrow options prematurely. On the other hand, to elect a candidate whom some members had never met (as happened before the commissions began interviewing) would be very odd.
Every system for choosing bishops has potential drawbacks. What can be said with confidence is that, with just 20 members, the Crown Nominations Commission can undertake a confidential process of discernment in an atmosphere of prayer, reflection, and some frankness. Pray that the commission’s choice may be inspired.
