By Anna Rees
PREMIER CHRISTIAN NEWS
March 11, 2025
A member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) has criticised the process of choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury, branding it “confusing” and “lacking in transparency”.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard raised his concerns, after the General Synod voted against changes to the decision-making process of the Crown Nominations Commission, submitted by the House of Bishops.
The CNC are a group of church leaders and lay people who recommend candidates for vacant diocesan roles in the Church of England – such as bishops and archbishops.
The CNC leads a discernment process over candidates submitted to it, and puts the chosen candidate forward to the King, via the Prime Minister. Unusually, the current choosing process for the next Archbishop of Canterbury will consider candidates nominated by the general public – provided they are ordained. The consultation runs from February 7 to March 28.
The process also involves consulting various bodies within the church. A Vacancy in See Committee (ViSC) in each diocese elects members for the Crown Nominations Commission and provides it with a profile of their individual diocese’s needs.
However - Goddard suggests that due process is not being followed the Canterbury diocese. He cites the failure and lack of attention paid to replace members of the existing 2022-2024 Vacancy in See Committee (ViSC) within the timeframe originally agreed, which led to a large number of vacancies. Goddard saw this failing as particularly significant, given that the Archbishop of Canterbury was set to retire.
A second ViSC was formed in December, following Justin Welby’s resignation. Yet neither this nor the previous ViSC are being used. Instead, a third committee is being formed - overlapping with the introduction of new regulations around ViSC elections at the General Synod in February. Using the new Regulation would raise yet a further set of questions about the Canterbury process. This process has been criticised as being shrouded in mystery, as it is unclear whether the latest ViSC complies with the new regulations.
Goddard states: “There appears to have been, and still remains, some considerable confusion and serious questions which need answering with no less than three different Vacancy in See Committees (ViSC) being in existence in the diocese since the vacancy was announced but with all of them potentially not compliant with the Regulation.”
The nominations of three Canterbury representatives on the CNC will take place in the near future. However, new regulations stipulate that no male clergy in Canterbury diocese can be elected, in an attempt to balance the male-dominated CNC. The controversial new rule requires those elected by the ViSC to include the election of one clergywoman and one lay woman.
Goddard says: “Uniquely, Canterbury is only electing three members so when this new rule combines with the rule that at least half of CNC members must be lay, this means that no male clergyperson can be elected.”
John Dunnett, National Director, Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), said: “Time and again, we see that proper process is simply not being followed on significant issues such as these. Andrew’s analysis spells out why confidence and trust in the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury could be undermined if due process is neglected.”
END
コメント