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