Just recently I had an email from abroad, wanting to know if I had any comments about what we may call ‘the bishop problem’. He may have read a piece in The Times and a blog piece that I wrote in past months pointing out the difficulty that the Church of England seems to be having in finding good candidates for its senior posts. In fact, the problem is not just about finding suitable candidates but also retaining them after they have been nominated and put in post. Readers of Surviving Church will be aware of the recent issues that have attached themselves to the nomination of the Bishop of Warwick and the fact that a complaint has caused a delay in Canon Tim Lomax’s consecration. Then there are three recent cases of diocesan Bishops having to ‘stand back’ or resign. At present there are more ‘acting’ bishops leading dioceses than has ever been the case before. The existing meticulous protocols surrounding the appointment of bishops, especially diocesans, mean that the Crown Nominations Committee responsible for this task is forced to work slowly. This helps to explain why things seem to move at a glacial pace. This is a source of considerable frustration for those in vacant dioceses who have to face a wait of two or more years for a new episcopal leader to appear. This slow pace of identifying and appointing good candidates does not fit well with a situation where there are several unexpected departures by senior figures in the church.
Today we have a situation in which there are eight or nine diocesan episcopal vacancies or announced vacancies. One other diocese (Salisbury) is awaiting a decision as to whether its bishop is in any way guilty of an unspecified offence. To put replacements in each of these posts is going to absorb an enormous amount of energy and skill on the part of highly qualified but busy people who do the work of scrutiny and nomination. Because many of the same people are involved in the nomination processes across the country, these eight vacancies are going to create considerable strain on the institution of the Church of England. Even if things go as smoothly as possible, we can expect that the whole process will take two to three years. To judge from the experience of the recent past, appointments at this level almost inevitably meet obstacles along the way. In the recent attempt to make an appointment of the Bishop of Durham, a post that traditionally that has attracted candidates of the highest calibre, a preferred candidate withdrew in the middle of the nominating process. Let us, for a moment, assume that things do go well and that the eight posts are filled from the existing pool of candidates in as little as two years. Most of the appointments will be made from those who have already cut their teeth as suffragan bishops. In practice, those who act as suffragans are not always ready for the substantial increase of responsibility that comes with a diocesan post. They may have seen enough of this level of pressurised operation to know that they do not have the stamina for the endless decision making and committee work that goes with a diocesan episcopal post. They may also have witnessed from the inside a series of blunders and errors on the part of the previous holder of the role. They know that many of the problems left behind cannot be resolved by a simple exercise of their institutional power. There are, for example, incidents of serious unprofessional behaviour by clergy which do not go away easily. The power to remove clergy from office is very difficult to implement. But with our optimal timetable, we are going, for the moment, to assume that the present list of vacancies disappears, and that a new generation of episcopal candidates appears from the ranks of ordinary clergy replace the suffragans who have stepped up to fill the diocesan vacancies. What can possibly go wrong?
In Italian there is a word to describe candidates for the Papacy, men who are the right age and possess the right background for consideration to the top job. They are described as papabile. The word ‘episcabile’ does not exist in any language, but we need such a word to denote individuals who are potentially able to fill the diocesan vacancies and also provide a new generation of suffragan bishops. For the sake of argument, I am going to assume that there are candidates across the Church able and qualified, now or in the future, to function as senior bishops for the Church of England. The problem is that these episcabile men and women are relatively few in number. In the first place there is nothing in the training that clergy currently receive (or have received) that makes them potentially ready to do the job of a bishop at any level. The training that is provided is for the role of a parish priest. It is only a small number that enter the select cohort that enables them to reach a place where they can become episcabile. A few ordinary parish priests bring management or intellectual skills from previous careers that make them potentially able to be on a path to take one of the bishop roles. But these are few in number since, as we have noted in earlier posts, the skills required are so extensive. Also, some of those who possess the right qualities to be episcopal candidates will quickly make it clear that they have absolutely no interest in taking on the enormous stresses required of those in episcopal leadership. My cohort of episcabile clergy instantly shrinks to a very small number.
The next thing which shrinks the cohort still further is the inevitable safeguarding scrutiny. Today, a problem for clergy right across the board is not only whether they have themselves a clean bill of bill of health over power abuse, safeguarding training and bullying incidents, but whether they may have failed to report such behaviour in others. Further names disappear from our list because some on it knew of a safeguarding episode and failed to do anything about it. Some safeguarding lapses are obviously more serious than others. Speaking generally, it is a matter of record that several senior clergy in the Church of England do seem to have a flawed safeguarding record hanging over them. Some of the accusations of cover-up or failure to respond must result in considerable strain for those who occupy these places of high office. Resilience and the possession of a very thick skin to cope with criticism, whether or not justified, is always required of those who have climbed the pole of promotion in our national Church.
Among the many other qualities required of our present and future bishops is a good theological brain. We find that across the Church there are reasonable number of those who have taken their study beyond the basics, and received doctorates from eminent universities in topics that may be relevant to the task of effective episcopal oversight. But the current leadership has not so far been known for inspirational leadership in the area of theological teaching. We may have to wait some time for this situation to change. It is a long time since the wider church or, indeed, the general public, listened to the theological reflections and insights of senior clergy. An enormous amount of energy has been expended on the topic of marriage and sexual ethics. The outsider looking in might conclude that there are no other topics worth discussing in the Church. Can no one in leadership articulate better how the Church is bearer of ‘Good News’?
My final observation in what is a somewhat gloomy prognosis for the Church of England and its present and future bishops, is to note a serious division that is emerging within parishes across the country. Once upon a time the task of the Church and the parishes that make up its public face, was easy to identify. The Church of England had a duty of care potentially to the whole population. It was the institution which offered to provide spiritual support and reassurance from birth to the grave. The church building found in every community was a spiritual symbol of this divine concern for all. Now the focus seems in many places to be about entertainment and providing a model of church life that has appeal to the youthful sector of society. This section of the church believes that it has found the formula for growing the church. A combination of gospel songs, attractive young charismatic personalities and a guaranteed creation of intense emotional experience is thought to be the key to the church’s future. The skills of the past, such as ministry to the sick and dying and engaging with the church’s rich liturgical and theological traditions seem to have gone right out of fashion among many recently ordained clergy. The point that really concerns me, and many clergy from my generation is that there will shortly arise a generation of clergy and bishops who know nothing of the richness of the past. The HTB charismatic tradition has an important place within the Anglican fold, but the same tradition can become truly toxic and dangerous the moment it sets itself up as the sole and only valid expression of Christianity for Britain. Conservative readings of Scripture may have a place in the total scheme of things in our engagement with the Bible. But they provide a very poor model if they are expected to carry the weight of being the only valid approach to the riches of the Bible. The bishops of today and tomorrow need to ensure that there is a true mixed economy within our church. The presumption by the wealthy HTB parishes to dictate to the rest which parts of the Anglican tradition are most highly honoured is ultimately deeply destructive to the whole Church of England. Let us hope and pray that there are still enough prayerful men and women in the Church of England who have the experience, knowledge and wisdom to fill the vacant sees at Diocesan level (listed below) and the next generations of suffragans to follow.
- Lincoln: Became vacant on October 1, 2026 (following the retirement of Stephen Conway).
- Manchester: Announcement on March 4, 2026, with the see becoming vacant on August 1, 2027 (following David Walker’s retirement).
- Guildford: Vacant since March 3, 2026 (following the death of Andrew Watson).
- Lichfield: Vacant from September 30, 2026 (following Michael Ipgrave’s retirement).
- Chichester: Vacant from June 1, 2026 (following Martin Warner’s retirement).
- Southwark: Vacant from August 5, 2026 (following Christopher Chessun’s retirement).
- Oxford: Vacant from August 1, 2026 (following Steven Croft’s retirement).
- London: Vacant from January 28, 2026 (following Sarah Mullally’s translation).
- Liverpool: Vacant following the departure of John Perumbalath.
Interesting, as always, Stephen, and thanks once again. But I am not sure if any bishop appointment will fix Anglicanism’s self-destruction. The scale of bullying and abuse cover ups has possibly never been fully discussed among church members.
Events in Aberdeen and Orkney Diocese are far from attractive. The same goes for the departure of Justin Welby from Canterbury. The resignation of Andrew John from Bangor in Wales is another reminder of massive problems, and does FAITH AND FAILINGS (9 June 2026 on BBC website) expose a stench from Belfast? Adult Anglicans have repeatedly failed to force a much needed process of radical reform, and a long overdue addressing of widespread shoddy Church practice.
This is a far greater priority than bishop appointments. Biblical principles of natural justice, existing Church internal rules and national law (or legal practice) need to be respected. Ideas have consequences, and bishops reap what they sow.
On a positive note,-‘who we get rid of’- is potentially far more important than which bishop gets appointed. Multiple empty dioceses-plus Archbishop resignations-point to limited success just yet. Also, with the scale of crises hidden by some bishops, do we reach a stage where no permanent bishop could be a good option???
Expensive coffee devices can be an addictive obsession, and draw a lot of attention and expenditure of money. But a Vietnamese Phin filter, once the art of using it is learnt, is a great tool. A Phin can cost around £5-£10 or less. Who we have as a bishop matters not an other, if practical procedures are not followed in regard to addressing bullying or abuse. A Kalita Wave filter makes superb coffee-but only if the bloom is perfected by following the manufacturer’s instructions.
Understanding coffee brewing (and blooming) generates wonderful coffee. Anglicans wider detailed awareness, of bullying-abuse-harassment, is what will finally get rid of shoddy practice and metaphorically ‘overturn the money changers tables in the temple’. That is where SC is such a positive force for good. May your work be blessed.
A profound piece of writing. Truth to Power and much needed.
However, on past experience, it is unlikely that even one bishop would dare accept what Stephen writes and make any effort to change the situation. They are afraid of acknowledging the truth. Recent blogs on SC show this to be the case. Look especially at:
https://survivingchurch.org/2026/08/14/the-odyssey-a-lessons-learned-review-for-the-church-of-england-by-anon/
https://survivingchurch.org/2026/09/25/journeying-with-fr-mark-a-pcc-members-testimony-on-institutional-cruelty/
This is in addition to the many open letters signed by numerous distinguished people and ignored totally……and the books: ‘Bleeding for Jesus’, ‘Letters to a Broken Church’, ‘Bullies and Bystanders’. Have I missed any?
Nothing changes. Just a continuing pretence that lessons are being learned but there is no evidence of this.
Graham Jones summed up the whole despairing situation in a comment on Thinking Anglicans posted 7 October about Dame Christine Ryan:
‘IICSA, Atkinson, Munn, Jasvinder, Reeves, Wilkinson, Professor Jay, Makin, INEQE, Charity Commission, now Christine Ryan. How many times does the CofE have to be told what to do to bring true independence? How many more will be ignored, then resign or get sacked? It is just unbelievable.’
Yes Graham, but tragically it is believable because it is what is happening.
I am inclined not to give up hope! BBC Radio Wales have a stunning new series of broadcasts by India Pollock called IN DETAIL…DARK ISLAND. The eight broadcasts are posted online and each is around 30 mins.
Victims, witnesses and whistleblowers, of abuse and cover-ups on Caldey Island, have an achieved a great deal through their tenacity. The Welsh media has also been very helpful.
Also of interest is-SHE SAID-a book about the exposure of Weinstein. A recent skim read of it has a similarly positive message to the Welsh story. A shift of the tide rapidly happens when multiple victims cease to be bound by NDA’s.
It’s not the attractive thing it once was, becoming a bishop. We’ve had a number of decades of scrutiny, including the internet and social media (like this) to throw light on what these blokes got up to in the past. There’s not just one scandal, but several brewing at a time.
In addition, the blurred nature of the role is becoming increasingly apparent, but no less blurry. In the past, some would have been very comfortable with this sort of ambiguity, seeming to have authority, with very little accountability and an endless stream of acolytes, both official and amongst the fawning laity, to flatter the ego.
However modern, dynamic and skilful candidates, particularly if they have had outside experience, will be expecting to be able to lead. That is, to do something different: to change things.
This is not just to manage, worthy in itself of course, but really about that’s about keeping the existing thing running. Often that can be delegated to competent others, and often is, including armies of volunteers (albeit dwindling armies). No, to lead is about taking the Church somewhere. Not possible I’m afraid. Not allowed.
The archbishop of Canterbury herself, theoretically the top bod, has made it clear she can’t really change anything. She can’t sack a bishop. Her predecessor made the same point. If they can’t, how is a regular bishop supposed to make much of a difference. No one wants this.
What the role of a new (non)leader “bishop” still attracts, however, is politicians. That’s not to say all bishops are politicians, but you’ll need to be become a good politician to survive in the role. Few go into the ordination process with a desire to be a politician, I would suggest. You’ll certainly need a different set of skills to run the diocese. Fancy it? No I didn’t think so.
Change does accrue slowly, over time. Rapid change can occur but usually involves dramatic events, like a sudden pandemic, or a bankruptcy. Then everything changes quickly, but painfully. A diocese, or perhaps with less impact, a treasured cathedral, would have to close down overnight. Until something like this happens, really not much will change. These types of cataclysmic events galvanise intense feeling and immediate action.
Do we want to keep visiting our beautiful churches, a nation’s heritage, and will we pay to do so? Heritage will matter much more to us than little people, who’ve been repeatedly harmed and there’s not much sign of that changing.
Also, would you like to join an organisation in a senior position, which is known to be in decline? It’s not particularly appealing, as a way to sign off the last decades of your career. It’s little wonder then, that there are so few takers.
‘Fears cathedral could close over funding crisis’ is a 25 October 2026 BBC website article about Southwell Minster.
A crisis with the maintenance of buildings, and also keeping salaries and pensions accounts replenished, may be exactly what Anglicanism needs.
I’m not convinced there’s a general shortage of clergy willing to be a bishop, though there might well be a dearth of takers for particularly challenging dioceses. Parish clergy are under such extreme pressure now, with so little security or control over their work and circumstances, and under so much scrutiny, that being a bishop might well seem attractive by comparison. Bishops might complain they have little power, but they have more control than parish clergy do. They also have more administrative help, a higher salary, nicer house (usually!), more job security, and better pension. Plus more status, for those who care about that.
Being a diocesan now does compare unfavourably with being a diocesan 20 or 30 years ago, and with being a leader in some other fields. But for many desperate parish clergy, it must still seem more attractive than the position they occupy now.
What about the age when bishops get appointed, how long they are expected to serve in that role, and if there is a necessity for years (or decades) of frontline parish ministry before they are elevated? I have heard rumours how there could sometimes be-‘HMS Pinafore’-type forces at work.
Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn’t fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule —
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen’s Navee!
CHORUS. — Stick close close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen’s Navee!
*Spoiler Alert* we’ve been watching Celebrity Traitors on BBC1, which reaches its finale tonight. I’ve no interest in celebrities per se, and rarely know who many of them are, but it’s the group dynamics that are so interesting . In particular it’s watching how a group of people individually and then collectively, make a decision about another person.
The programme is followed by an “Uncloaked” follow up show, with Ed Gamble hosting, where delegates are shown the names of the actual traitors, once they’ve been eliminated from the rather stylish Scottish castle. They are often wrong, often diametrically wrong. And sometimes they are right. Those who are nearer the truth are frequently vilified back in the house, and once the others hear of their mistake in getting it wrong, they proceed to repeat the mistake again and again. They could almost be muttering “lessons learned”.
Corporately communities have difficulty learning from their errors, and carry on making them. Individually we are frequently taken in by people who are smooth, with a veneer of sincerity, particularly those who subtly flatter us. People who challenge us, we assume to be wrong. Or people who are a bit stroppy or have rough edges, we take against, and isolate them for elimination. I recommend the contrast between Joanne and Sharon.
One confession I must make is to the inverse snobbery of dismissing “celebrities”, many of whom are accomplished (not always in a good way) and my prejudices are frequently in error about the purported integrity of each, one way or the other. However we must remember the level of editing that goes on, so I suppose we’ll never know for sure!