No easy task. So it must be important to make sure the candidates for the Archbishop of Canterbury are at the top of their game and picked in the most representative and transparent way possible, right? Wrong.In his column in The Independent Jerome Taylor explores not only the process of choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury but also the implications of the choice not only for the Church of England but for the Anglican Communion. The process seems strange to us in the Episcopal Church, for we elect our Presiding Bishop in a more democratic and less secretive process.
The method for choosing Dr Rowan Williams’ replacement is as arcane and archaic as it was in the time of Henry VIII. A secretive committee meets at a secretive location to discuss a never-made-public list. Two names are given to the Prime Minister who hands them over to the Queen. You can’t apply for the job and anyone who suggests too publicly that they want it, usually doesn’t get it.
With respect to the Anglican Communion, perhaps it's time to open the office of Primus inter pares to primates of other member churches in the Communion for a term of a set number of years, lasting not as long as the present Archbishop of Canterbury served in the role. Such an arrangement would relieve the archbishop of the onerous duty of playing the added role of leader of the Communion for his (for now) entire term of office.
And now perhaps I should move on to another subject. I have to say that to focus for a spell on the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury was a welcome relief to the seemingly everlasting campaign season here in the US. On to the debates!
UPDATE: I should have noted that the position of Archbishop of Canterbury is not restricted to an Englishman, but the candidate must be a citizen of one of
Anything I feel is better than this whole political season, sadly.
ReplyDeleteTedious beyond measure surely, but - alas - we must continue to pay attention.
ReplyDeleteYou can refer to that set of countries a little more conveniently as "the Commonwealth monarchies."
ReplyDeleteQuestion? Can't the queen reject the names that are presented to her for nomination?
ReplyDeleteActually, citizens of any Commonwealth nation, not just Commonwealth realms, as well as Citizens of the Irish Republic (which isn't in the Commonwealth) are elgible to serve in the House of Lords, which is one of the prerequisites for the ABC. Being a bishop is another one. Being able to say the creeds without fingers crossed is a desirable trait, but may not be an absolute prerequisite. It certainly isn't as important as knowing which fork to use for which course at a formal dinner.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of rotating the leadership of the AC among the various primates. It may also sit better with some (but not all) of the Global South primates who, besides their disagreement with the actions in some provinces, see the present arrangement as a hangover from colonial times.
In theory, the Queen can reject the name(s) that the Prime Minister presents to her. In reality, it won't happen. The Queen is always supposed to follow the prime minister's advice. For her not to do so here would cause a constitutional crisis, which is the last thing she would want to do in the closing years of her reign.
Paul, thanks for fleshing out the list of criteria to be eligible for the position of ABC.
DeleteIf the position were to rotate amongst the primates the role should be limited to presiding over Lambeth, the Primates meetings, and the ACC meetings and traveling to the churches of the communion in ceremonial visits. Of course whoever was chosen would have a bully pulpit to use for good or for ill.
I would say that if it were thought advisable, the Crown could grant British citizenship to anyone who was nominated for Archbishop of Canterbury. I am a dual British/US citizen, and other countries also allow dual citizenship. But, even if they didn't, isn't Lambeth worth a passport?
ReplyDeleteIf a US citizen were to be nominated and were to take dual citizenship, his US citizenship would probably be revoked as service in a foreign parliament is usually seen by the State Department as an intention to lose one's US citizenship.
I think it's unlikely to happen again; the last non-Englishperson who was Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't make the prospect of another one very appealing, no?
Chris, thanks for further info on who can be ABC. Just so you'll know, I'm not in the running, and I will not serve if by some miracle I should be the dark-horse choice. :-D
DeleteBesides, it appears that the first choice may have been made, and the deadlock is on no. 2.
If you don't want it, I'll take it.
DeletePaul, you'd be a splendid choice. Maybe we can work out a way to have you declared archbishop by acclamation like St Ambrose.
DeleteAlas, Mrs. Powers doesn't cotton to the idea, so we'll have to come up with somebody else. Perhaps someone from County Durham besides Bishop Welby.
DeleteThe other day I happened to be on the website of a Scottish newspaper with an article on our presidential campaign - and some Scot with a thistle up his, er, kilt wrote in to say that our constitutional arrangements were all wrong, and everybody from Congressman to Senator to President should be elected for a minimum of six-year terms, so as not to have so many confusing elections.
ReplyDeleteWell. It may be too much for Angus to contemplate way out there on the windswept heath, but I was amazed at his effrontery - he doesn't have to live with the system, we do - and with all its flaws and foibles, I think the vast majority of Americans are not at all inclined to rip up the Constitution and go back to square one on the advice of some perturbed, distant Scotsman.
Along the same lines, Mimi, with all due respect I think the idea of rotating the office among other primates or some kind of worldwide system is just very wrongheaded. Stop and think about this: we Anglicans do not have a Pope. And we do not want one. Do we? Be careful, very careful what you wish for . . . especially after all that effort opposing the Anglican Covenant!
The first job of the ABC is to run the Church of England - not the rest of the world. He is primus inter pares, but that is what it is: it implies that the others are equal but distinct and independent. Which is just as it should be.
I say, let the English Church choose the ABC howsoever they want to do it, for whatever reasons seem good to them. He's their head, and they have to live with him. Then the rest of us will listen respectfully and prayerfully to what pronouncements he cares to make - and do what seems good to us, whether the ABC likes it or not. Which is as it should be. This is not a single, monolithic, monarchical church like that of Rome; it is a free association of entirely independent churches, all of whom are equal - the ABC's position is one of honor, not of authority.
Where is the problem with this system? What exactly is wrong with it, that would be blessedly remedied by some other scheme? And who are we to tell the English how to govern their own church? Turn it around in your mind, Mimi - suppose someone were to say that other branches of the Communion should have a say in who gets elected Presiding Bishop of the U.S., since it's such a prominent see. Then how would you feel?
Russ, have you been observing Rowan over the last 10 years? I won't go through his entire history of interference with the Episcopal Church, but it's writ large. If the next ABC leaves us alone, my only reason to care would be for the sake of my sisters and brothers in England.
DeleteI admit to ignorance over his "history of interference with the Episcopal Church," since I've had other pressing matters much closer to home to contend with these last ten years. However, he has no legal or hierarchical authority on these shores - and people on both sides of the water, and both sides of the schism, would do well to remember that, I think.
ReplyDeleteThat's quite true, Russ, but Rowan managed to exert his influence to good effect from his bully pulpit.
Delete