After contentious debate on February 13 that extended more than two hours beyond the allotted time, the Church of England’s General Synod defeated three proposals to change the rules by which Crown Nominations Commissions (CNC) would select future bishops, including the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
The proposals, which were developed by an advisory group chaired by Bishop Sarah Mullally of London and endorsed by the House of Bishops, would have removed the secret ballot, lowered the threshold for election from two-thirds to 60 percent, and given the archbishop chairing a CNC the power to cast an extra vote to break a deadlock. Though the Synod’s House of Bishops backed two of the three proposals, all were voted down by its House of Laity.
Tensions between the synod and the increasingly progressive body of bishops that have been exacerbated by the Living in Love and Faith process surfaced in debate. Allegations that coercion was applied by senior bishops within the CNC that elected the recently disgraced Bishop of Liverpool were also raised.
Mullally introduced the proposals, which were considered separately, explaining that the failure of the CNCs to nominate to the sees of Carlisle and Ely in 2023 and 2024 had led to calls for reforming the process. Last September, she also claimed that the processes’ “pre-judgments, tribalism, or politics” were spreading fear among women and minority candidates for the senior posts.
Bishop Andrew Watson of Guildford, a prominent conservative, was not convinced. Describing what he called a “significant shift in power” in the proposals, he said the church could use “three sledgehammers or three nutcrackers to tackle what is a relatively crackable nut.”
Several of the “central members” of the CNC, who are elected by General Synod, expressed frustration that they had not been consulted by the bishops on the proposals. In a preliminary debate on February 12, the Rev. Lis Goddard claimed that the proposals amounted to “a massive shift in how we operate, shifting the power dramatically to those who already hold the majority of power.”
“These changes will undermine diocesan members … making it much easier for them to be pressured into particular decisions and compromise the integrity of what is a carefully balanced voting system. We need to pay attention to power, and particularly in the CNC system at this time,” she added.
The Rev. Charlie Bell of Southwark, a prominent LGBT activist, argued for lowering the threshold for election to 60 percent: “LLF is being weaponized in the wider CNC process. We seem suddenly determined to crush vocation in this chamber. We need to get real. Pass this amendment and let the CNC do its job as intended to do.”
Alison Coulter, a lay member from Winchester, spoke in support of abolishing the secret ballot. “If you’re elected to CNC, you’ve been invited into a leadership role within the church. We need to have courage. There should be no fear in the process.”
The Rev. Canon John Dunnett of Chelmsford, national director of the Church of England Evangelical Council, countered that the secret ballot prevents coercion and intimidation by activists, which is why it had been required by Britain’s Trades Union Act of 1984.
The final proposal debated by Synod, which would have given the archbishop a second vote to break deadlocks, proved less controversial.
“Agreeing to this proposal would mean setting up the Archbishop of York and Archbishop of Canterbury to increased scrutiny — look what happened in Liverpool,” said the Rev. Mark Miller of Durham.
Archbishop Stephen Cottrell, who has denied applying pressure on the Liverpool CNC, also argued against the proposal: “I don’t want this added power, and if you vote for it, Synod, I will choose not to use it.”
Several uncontroversial changes to the CNC process, including expanded flexibility in substituting for members who could not attend, and allowing for interpreters to be present when necessary, passed handily.
The synod also approved a major revision of the Church’s Clergy Discipline Measure on February 12, completing a multi-year reform project, aiming to address criticisms that the system had become overly legalistic, slow, and burdensome for both complainants and accused clergy.
The new system will have a tiered approach, with minor grievances addressed locally, while case assessors will investigate more serious charges. The most serious cases will handled by an independent Investigation and Tribunals Team.
There will be a dedicated system to handle vexatious complaints, and officers will be empowered to impose restraining orders for those who harass clergy. The most serious sentence of deposition from Holy Orders, which had been removed in 2003, is now reintroduced for cases of grave misconduct.
The Rev. Mark Michael is editor-in-chief of The Living Church. An Episcopal priest, he has reported widely on global Anglicanism, and also writes about church history, liturgy, and pastoral ministry.
