A few weeks back I wrote about the experience of job interviews in the Church. This experience, which many of my readers have endured, is not far from our minds as we contemplate the enormously critical interview due to take place for the post of Archbishop of Canterbury, sometime in the summer months. Two things make this interview stand out. It takes place against a background of political division and intransigence that did not exist to the same extent when Justin Welby was scrutinised back in 2012. Another thing is that the new incumbent will be aware that he/she is taking over a role that has demoralised and enfeebled the immediate predecessor. A further point to be made is that, currently, the financial and spiritual health of the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion could be said to be in a more fragile state than at any time in the past two hundred years. The conclusion of many people is that the post of Archbishop of Canterbury has now become a thoroughly poisoned chalice in 2025.
In job advertisements for posts in many walks of life, recruiters have often included two useful lists to help a potential candidate decide whether to apply. In one column there is a list of ‘essential’ qualities needed for the post. In another list there are qualities mentioned which are ‘desirable’ for the applicant to have, and these go beyond the bare minimum. The expectation is that, in a situation where two candidates of equal merit present themselves, the applicant with a greater number of desirable qualifications will be preferred. Whether or not such columns exist for the next occupant of the chair of St Augustine, this does not stop interested parties (that includes some readers of SC!) creating fantasy lists as a way of thinking out loud about the qualities we would like to see in a new archbishop. This speculation about the essential and desirable qualities for would-be candidates has been encouraged by the open invitation to every member of the Church of England. All are being asked to express their opinions and even suggest names of potential candidates. It remains to be seen whether such attempts to open up the field to outsider contenders will make any difference to the process which begins in earnest in May of this year.
To return to our essential/desirable fantasy lists, we can start by recognising that there will never really be any widespread consensus as to what should be mentioned in the desirable list. The thoughts in my mind and in that of somebody else on what is desirable, will, undoubtably, reveal something about the compiler and their own ideas/priorities for the Church. Such desirable lists would, anyway, contain an impossibly large number of expectations. The Church, as we all recognise, has so many opinions, manifestations and expressions within it that it would be difficult to find a leader capable of meeting even a small number of these expectations. If we find it difficult to agree what should be on the desirable list because of the wide-ranging nature of peoples’ hopes, the same should not be true for the contents of an essential list. If the next Archbishop of Canterbury is in any way to be successful in the role, it will be because he/she has in some way grasped the nettle of what is the essential direction of travel for the Church over the coming century. What follows is in no way a complete essential list but an invitation to think out loud and share ideas about what is truly important for the future leader in our Church of England.
The rest of this piece will set out my ideas about some of the essential qualities that I believe might be required of an Archbishop of Canterbury today. Some of them will be similar to the qualities we ask of our parochial clergy, but I do recognise that constant public exposure by a church leader to the press and the public requires a particular, even superhuman, resilience and stamina. This is similar to that required of our politicians. Apart from this need to have a enormous capacity for work and the gift of imperviousness to substantial pressures, I centre my remarks on three qualities beginning with the letter ‘I’. They are integrity, inspirational and indwelling. Every one of my readers will probably have further essential qualities to add to this list, but I allow myself the excuse that I only have 1500 words for these musings. On such a big topic it is inevitable that important things will get left out.
I start my essential list with my old favourite – integrity. The next Archbishop of C needs to be for the church’s sake, and that of society, a WYSIWYG – what you see is what you get – kind of person. In this epoch of safeguarding anxiety, we also cannot afford to have a candidate with any involvement with past scandal or even having knowledge of such behaviour. The more general meanings of integrity, involving openness and complete honesty together with a requisite and appropriate response to any wrongdoing, whether by an individual or group, has to be built in and assumed. But the problem is that there has been so much bad behaviour or tolerance of such things as bullying, secrecy and cover-up, that there can only be a few bishops left of whom it can be said that there are no rumours around their actions and decisions in the past. We are not here speaking about such things as mood swings or lapses into irritability but of endemic character flaws that would cause a negative response in anyone hearing about them for the first time. Past attempts to bury scandal, using the tools of secrecy and institutional power, do not compare well with the kind of openness that genuine WYSIWYG integrity implies. Even in our house of bishops, this genuine openness is not as common as we would like in an institution that claims to embody the wholeness and holiness of its founder.
The word inspiration has a special meaning in a Christian context. It refers to the possession of the Spirit, ‘the Lord, the giver of life’. To ask for an inspiring archbishop is to ask for a man or woman who can inspire as they themselves are inspired. To mediate inspiration, the archbishop should be able to teach and preach in a way that makes a mark on the hearer. There should be sound theology as well as memorable inspiring imagery. Something of the excitement of good news should inhabit every public utterance and the impact of the archbishop’s spoken word, whether in a sermon or in the House of Lords, should have the quality of making people want to listen.
The final I word, ‘indwelling’, is not one that immediately releases its meaning without some word of explanation. I want an archbishop to have some of the quality of relating to others which make all their encounters with people special, so that something important is given and shared. This is a gift that I realise few people possess with any degree of completeness, so we can think of this as an aspirational quality to be aimed at, though seldom realised. I have yet to come up with another English word which captures what I mean by indwelling. Such a word would need to encompass elements of true altruistic love, empathy and human sharing. We all recognise this special empathetic quality of relating, when someone of complete integrity looks at us in the eye and gives/shares something of themselves. It is not an act of dominance or control but simply a momentary indwelling and this is experienced as a kind of blessing. An archbishop will meet thousands of individuals in the course of his/her work without the slightest chance of remembering names or anything else about them. But a lot can be given and received in the five second handshake; relationships can begin, and human barriers can start to dissolve, whether those of race, language or culture. The capacity of an archbishop to indwell another person will allow him/her to perform the vital task of building up the institution and helping the entire Anglican structure to find its way back to being the ‘Body of Christ’ in the true biblical sense.
The final question remains. Does a qualified person with these three ‘essential’ qualities exist? Part of me is gloomy in offering an answer to this. But, if there can be found an individual who possesses these three ‘I’ qualities, then there is hope. If on the other hand, serious compromises have to be made over the integrity, inspiration and indwelling/empathy of an otherwise promising candidate, then the further decline of our national church may be rapid.
Does the ABC actually lead the Church? Many of my clergy friends think he did or should have. But unlike a chief executive, the Archbishop seems to have very little actual power or authority over others in his (or now perhaps her) organisation.
I would argue that the top position is more of being a representative of the Church, like a figurehead. Still he or she would benefit (us) with the qualities Stephen Parsons suggests. But time and again when attempts have been made to change what the Anglican Church does, and how it does it, neither the ABC nor anyone else has made much progress. Authority is devolved across a diffuse and vast network of autonomous parishes and individual priests. At the same time there appear to be isolated pockets of real influence, behind the scenes, where decisions such as they are, are made. This appears to have very little connection to the ABC.
So when a new Archbishop is being chosen, we should bear in mind what he/she is actually for, and the very significant limits to their influence.
On the plus side, like in many other walks of life, a really good candidate gains informal authority, respect and thus influence quite independently of their formal technical parameters. Let’s pray for a good one.
Kangaroo court justice shames our Anglican denomination. Often, alas, our Bishops remain essentially unaccountable to anyone. Archbishops can be relatively powerless, and face an immediate conflict of interest, when confronted with bullying or abuse cover ups by bishops or dioceses.
I saw 2 out of 5 New Wine students driven from my former diocese. Both complained that a tutor-representing New Wine and the Diocese-called them each to a private meeting and then accused them of misbehaviour. Both felt unfairly accused of sexual misconduct in crude language.
“Any of us might fancy a change of breasts” were the words reported to me and a senior schoolmistress by one victim. The victim cried in my living room, following a meeting with a New Wine and Diocesan course tutor. Myself and the teacher picked him up in tears from the meeting. We were amazed. I watched my wristwatch and noted how he cried inconsolably for well over an hour in my home after feeling unfairly accused of adultery.
As well as the senior teacher, a Cambridge educated professor also saw the man’s spectacular mental state collapse. She was baffled how any student education programme would ever tolerate this type of behaviour in the modern era. The senior teacher and the professor both left the local Anglican Diocese in disgust when they witnessed how a Bishop failed to address a very clear trail of witness evidence. A senior cleric suggested that the student must have imagined being accused of adultery in foul language.
The student who had the spectacular mental collapse, as witnessed by three professionals in my living room, called me a few days later. He warned how the New Wine tutor expressed seething hatred for me, and boasted about plans to block me from ever receiving any parish placements after training course completion. I was baffled! Why in a private meeting with one student would confidentiality be broken?
But several weeks later the same tutor called me to meeting where I felt verbally abused in crude language and almost reduced to tears. They told me I was ‘living in sin’ and that my presence would ‘defile a pulpit’. I am actually single, and celibate. They wanted to prevent me from being commissioned as an evangelist after completing the New Wine course.
Mercifully, a senior non-conformist leader got wind of what was happening. They questioned if Anglican leaders were guilty of serious misconduct, and breaking Anglican Church rules plus national law. They advised us to insist on being commissioned, but to then escape the local diocese and the risk of yet more savage bullying.
The Anglican Church, sadly, in spite of reports to Archbishops, continues to cover up the savage ill-treatment of the people described above. Bishops and their senior team members are a law unto themselves. The collapse of the Church is a predictable consequence of poor senior leadership decisions and clay-footed leadership incompetence. Maybe we could rebrand the names of Anglican Dioceses. Any ideas for names. One might be ‘Down and Out Diocese’.
Archbishop Welby has been interviewed regarding his resignation, by Laura Kuenssberg for the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89y9g83e92o?fbclid=IwY2xjawJUmTxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHSU3TvQAp963eIgJDGmydI_vk_qBIFd3Ule8iyZBdCVTPx2bkkyB2WEXrA_aem_SjhNddiP0d-NGXyjrv82_w
Thanks, Janet, for an inspiring interview clip! At this point Justin Welby surely deserves some credit.We must pray-‘Thanks be to God’-for a senior cleric who honestly says they got it badly wrong.
That is exactly what is needed in the scenario I describe above, where a senior schoolmistress, a university professor, a medic and a businessman, all felt thrown under a bus and bullied into leaving their local Anglican diocese. Clay-footed leadership incompetence saw savage abuse of innocent adults covered up.
The scenario you described is truly appalling. The perpetrators never seem to be called to account.
The full Kuensberg/Welby interview is being screened tomorrow (Sunday March 30) morning.
Stephen, I agree regarding the qualities you’d like to see in an archbishop.
However, I’d add another one: the ability to accurately judge character and situations, and to make good appointments. The job is ridiculously vast, and there is so little any one person can do, that many important functions must be delegated. It’s crucial, therefore, that the archbishop (or any bishop) choose the right people to carry out those aspects of the job. And it’s clear that in the last 15 or so years that often hasn’t happened.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury must be a very shrewd judge of people – and that necessitates knowing her/himself well, with all their weaknesses and strengths. That’s what I’ll be praying for.
‘Judge’ is the key word. Flailing arms and humour do not cut it. Sober judgement, akin to senior legal experts, is what Anglicanism needs in a new lead Archbishop.
To a degree the ABC is only the chair of the Bishops’ committee. That needs to be remembered. But what also needs to be remembered is that much of this has already been decided! There are individuals who have been positioned for high office, not to say groomed, for years. This “long list” is pretty obvious, think Rose Dover, but which will be plumped for is less so. But it is vanishingly unlikely that someone not on it would be chosen.
I have returned to the thought provoking writing about choosing an Archbishop. As we approach the end of April should there be a concern that no new Archbishop has been chosen?
Is it indeed a poisoned chalice? Indwelling/empathy a must for a true candidate could be quite dangerous to some inside the set up of the church. An Archbishop who would speak the truth no matter what was at stake. Truly sympathetic with the survivors and the down trodden? Someone genuinely caring and bringing a godlike presence to the leadership of the church. A brave person indeed.
Rowan William carried huge intellect with humility, and endeared himself to Anglicans, plus those outside of our Church. Is there someone of his ilk?
Also, not a Welsh Anglican, but what about an Irish candidate? Archbishop John McDowell has a strong CV.
But is the Irish Primate compromised by the cover up of Belfast child abuse by the late Canon W G Neely, and are there other evangelical bullying or abuse cover ups?
The Neely case is ghastly. A 1970’s abuser was shielded and shifted to Tipperary. A major scandal was hushed up. Neely was buried in the equivalent of Canterbury.
Media or court activity brought the issue to attention. Yet even now, have Primate McDowell and episcopal chums woefully failed to make a proper public apology!