The proposals on Canterbury - and why they are wrong

For the Church of England ecclesiology and structure nerds, yesterday’s last minute Friday afternoon announcement of a consultation on the Canterbury CNC is quite significant. The proposal comes from a 2015 Diocesan Synod motion from Canterbury that asked for a reduction in the number of seats that they are allocated on the appointments committee for the Archbishop of Canterbury. The consultation does not provide any of the context of this decision. 

Yet also within this proposal is the suggestion that there are four more voting members of the CNC, all of whom should come from the Anglican Communion – in the consultation, the communion is separated into grand world regions, and one would come from each of these (Annex A). In brief, the current composition is: 

 6 General Synod members 

6 Canterbury members 

Two English bishops 

One person appointed by the PM 

One member of the Primates meeting of the Anglican Communion (who is elected by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council) 

Three non-voting members, which includes the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion. 

The proposed change would lead to the following composition:

6 General Synod members 

3 Canterbury members 

Two English bishops 

One person appointed by the PM 

Five members representing the Anglican Communion 

Three non-voting members, which includes the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion. The proposal appears wrongheaded in a number of ways. 

 In the first instance, the presentation of this proposal as ‘to resolve the concern expressed by the Diocese of Canterbury that the representation from the diocese is too large given the weight of other responsibilities held by the Archbishop of Canterbury’ appears misleading. The motion (as quoted in the documentation) makes no reference to ‘the weight of other responsibilities’, but simply refers to the number of Canterbury representatives. In paragraph 26 of the supporting notes, it is stated that ‘This proposal does not consider the representatives from the national interests of the Church of England since this was not within the suggestion of the Diocese of Canterbury.’ Nor was the suggestion on the Anglican Communion, from what is presented – it is unclear why this issue has been included in what appears to be a specific and distinct request from the Diocese of Canterbury. 

Which leads to a second, related point – this request came through in 2015. It appears that there has been no further consultation with the Diocesan Synod of Canterbury since then, and yet (paragraph 4) it was revisited ‘with the encouragement of the Archbishop of Canterbury’ in September 2021. It is not clear why, and at the very least the reason for this being dealt with now, and not discussed with the Diocesan Synod, should be made clear. 

Thirdly, the context here is key. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s role, and that of the Anglican Communion, has changed significantly over the years, often in an organic way that has not been accompanied by the serious theological reflection that is necessary for such a significant shift. The communion remains a deeply uncomfortable relic of a colonial age, particularly if the vision of the communion as outlined in this document is to be signed up to. 

The descriptions of the Archbishop of Canterbury within the proposal are telling. His role as an English diocesan is hugely played down, whereas his communion role – as ‘Focus of Unity’ and ‘Instrument of Communion’ – are brought to the fore. Yet ultimately – and particularly from an ecclesiological perspective – the Archbishop is primarily an English diocesan bishop. To say this is not to downplay the significant time and energy that goes into communion matters (described by the current Archbishop as around 25% of the time in the proposal), nor is it to downplay his national role, which is, of course, significant. But if we are moving away from the idea that the Archbishop of Canterbury is only primus inter pares, springing from his role as a diocesan bishop, rather than as a pseudo-Pope, then this is a major change in ecclesiology by the back door, and needs to be challenged if we are to remain anything like the historical Church of England. 

Another example of this is how even the role of the Primates and provinces are downplayed in the proposal. We are presented with ‘regions’ of the communion in Annex A, which are recommended as the areas from which to elect members to the new CNC. This appears to be an innovation based entirely on a pragmatic, rather than historically informed or theological basis. Once again, this is a challenge to the entire ecclesiology of the Anglican Church. 

The proposals doubtless come from a wish to try to improve on the current situation, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury’s role in the communion is deeply uncomfortable. It is noticeable that the role of ABC has become more and more one described in terms of leadership (including in this consultation), and yet the fact remains that this ‘leader’ of a global communion must be an English bishop. This is, ultimately, not a feasible position for any serious church to hold in the twenty-first century, and it is good that this is being recognised by the Archbishops’ Council.

However, what these proposals end up doing is cementing this position, rather than obviating is – essentially continuing rather than challenging the colonialist status quo. By making a nod to the communion in the appointment of an English bishop (which, incidentally, must carry some secular repercussions given the Archbishop is a Lord Spiritual), the current structures are made ‘more acceptable’ rather than faced with the challenge that their very nature is unacceptable. Allowing people from other countries to choose an inevitably English leader does not solve the legacy of colonialism. In the Annex, the Archbishop of Canterbury is described as the ‘leader of the Anglican Communion’ (a phrase that must surely be challenged or at least qualified, given its papal implications and its direct contradiction of basic Anglican polity). 

What must surely be done is a serious review of what the communion, and the Archbishop’s role, is as we move forwards. It is surely the time to stop tinkering with a colonial structure and start to look to the radical ideas that William Nye warns us against in the letter accompanying the proposal. In addition, it is clear that there is disquiet about whether the Archbishop of Canterbury can truly be an effective diocesan (with, of course, the support of the Bishop of Dover) in the present arrangement. These questions need to be tackled head on – the current proposals do not do this. 

The current situation is one in which the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot speak on behalf of the Church of England, yet is expected to be the figurehead of the Church of England. This is a totally absurd situation, and one which needs to be quickly and definitively resolved. It is clear that on a number of key issues – from LGBTQI, to women clergy and bishops – the communion cannot and will not speak with one voice, and at present the Church of England is unable to find its own distinct voice because of the need for ‘unity’ from the Archbishop in respect of the communion. These matters are urgent, and pressing, and it does a disservice to the entire communion if they are not addressed. 

Finally, it is not at all clear how the five ‘Anglican Communion members’ would be chosen – paragraph 25 simply states ‘the relevant Anglican Communion body would run the process for gathering nominations and choosing representatives from the Anglican Communion in accordance with whatever rules were stipulated in the Standing Orders’. In addition, it is not at all clear why the other UK provinces should be excluded from this process - as explicitly recommended in the proposal. Ultimately this is not a serious proposal and needs to be much more carefully outlined if it is to be even possible to put into practice. 

In addition, the document states that there is a wish to include ‘representation from primates, other clergy and laity from across the communion’. Ecclesiological questions abound here about who, how and why bishops, clergy and laity from across the communion should be involved in the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but not even the practical elements here are workable.

Unfortunately this is another example of cart before horse – the proposal in general is a good example of why theology and ecclesiology need to be embedded at the heart of decision-making and policy change in the Church of England. This proposal should be – at the very least – paused and reflected on with some seriousness before it goes further. Whilst in paragraph 19 and 20 we are told that we need to be ‘realistic’ about what can be done, and that ‘to begin to address the questions facing the Communion is, in the end, about the conversion of more than structures, but of the hearts of all involved, and of their practice of relationships through the Church to which we all belong.’ This may well be true, but this proposal is putting practical changes before the deep thinking about the nature of the Anglican Communion that needs to be done. It is not fit for purpose and should be rejected until this work is complete – or even started. 

Unfortunately, this proposal – with its apparently unrecognised ecclesiological implications – is not new in terms of major change being brought in for what appear to be pragmatic reasons, yet carrying these major repercussions. I have written previously about the changes to consecrations implemented during Covid – which appear to be permanent. The entire direction of travel is concerning, and needs rethinking. We have experts in theology and ecclesiology – it remains mystifying that they are not invited to the table in the name of pragmatism. The O’Donovan review into the CNC must surely be the start (incidentally a review that did not consider the communion implications in detail but did (5.19) refer to the Canterbury CNC) – not the end – of the work required.

For those interested, the consultation document is available here.