Summary
Andrew Goddard writes: Election processes are of limited interest to most people but it is a matter of serious concern when they go wrong. This is especially the case if they are important elections such as those with an impact on who will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
On the basis of the process followed in electing the Canterbury Diocese’s Vacancy-in-See Committee (ViSC), this article sets out the following 13 tips on how not to run an election, illustrating each of them from that recent important election. These tips cover a wide range of areas in the election process:
- election timing (Tip 1),
- election rules (Tips 2-5),
- who needs to be elected (Tips 6 & 7),
- who can be elected (Tips 8 & 9),
- who is on the ballot paper (Tips 10 & 11),
- how many votes are needed to be elected (Tip 12), and
- what information is given about the election result (Tip 13).
- Call the election under severe time pressure and against good practice, by extraordinary means, if possible in the context of confusion and errors in relation to recent previous elections.
- Change the rules for running the election while the election is underway.
- In those rule changes institute new rules that go against clearly stated good practice and ensure that in so doing the new rules also fail to provide sufficient guidance as to how to run the election given the new rules.
- Make up—but never declare or explain—a new rule to fill the gap in the rules and make sure it ignores the wishes of the voters in determining how to count the votes.
- Be willing to ignore some of the public rules in how you run the election and also add in some distinctive rules of your own which are not public.
- Fail properly to ascertain how many candidates should be elected.
- Give the voters misleading information about how many candidates they need to elect.
- Rule as ineligible for election people who were eligible when the election was called and nominations opened, ideally these candidates should belong to under-represented groups.
- Rule candidates out of being elected on the basis of a novel characteristic for which they have no responsibility, which they cannot easily change, which they may not even be aware applied to them until it was too late and nominations closed and were made public, and which opens up a path of malevolent manipulation on the part of opponents.
- Add to the ballot paper those known to be ineligible for election but do not make clear on the ballot paper they are ineligible or what you will do with any first preference votes cast for them.
- Also include on the ballot paper all candidates who will be elected unopposed to give voters the impression that they need their vote in order to be elected and do not make clear what you will do with any first preference votes they receive even though they do not need them.
- Do not at any stage in the process make clear how many votes a candidate needs in order to be elected.
- Refuse to publish the result sheet showing on what basis people were elected despite being required to do so by the rules. This will make it impossible for anyone to tell if rules were broken, how new rules were implemented, and whether any of this changed the outcome of the election thus giving grounds for an appeal.
Having illustrated each of these from a combination of the new national rules for the ViSC and specific decisions made in the Canterbury ViSC election process, the article concludes by noting that there are multiple causes for these various flaws and so no one person is to blame. Although their impact on the final election result remains unclear because the full result sheet has not been released, it is indisputable that rules were not followed. The consequences of this are potentially very serious and damaging with possibly the wrong people being elected and/or the work of the ViSC not being recognisably representative of the diocese. The implications of all this for the working of the Canterbury ViSC, and as a result for the wider Canterbury CNC process, is then noted and various possible next steps sketched.
The article ends by making an appeal for an urgent full and thorough review of the diocesan election process and of the new national Regulations that will govern both all future elections of the ViSC in each diocese and also (an area not discussed here) how each ViSC elects their diocesan representatives for the CNC that will nominate the diocesan bishop to the Crown.
A PDF of the whole article, with hyperlinked section headings, can be found here.
Elections are, like our cars, phones, computers, other technological devices and so much else in our lives, something most of us simply take for granted. We know they are important but we don’t really fully understand how they work. The problems arise when something goes wrong. And then it can be quite hard to diagnose the problem(s) and to determine the solution.
Elections and election processes are important as they are the means by which a group of people choose who will represent them and act on their behalf. Even if most members of the group don’t fully understand all the mechanics they need to have confidence that the processes are good democratic ones with a sound legal basis and that they are being followed properly. When that fails to happen serious problems can arise. That’s obviously true in national elections (think, to take just one recent example, of the Capitol Riot on 6th January 2021 in the US) but it also applies at much smaller levels. This could be a community group or a club or an academic society electing its committee, or employees choosing those who will represent them in meetings with employers, or a church choosing its PCC members. There is therefore a need for transparency as to how the election is run and how an outcome has been reached so that the election and its outcome can be explained to anyone interested in how the result was arrived at. This is in order that people can have confidence in the system, that those who wish to do so can understand its workings and what has happened in any particular election, and, where necessary, people can raise concerns about failures in electoral processes (whether by accident or intentionally) and hold those responsible accountable.
This article explores some of the multiple ways in which an election can go wrong, using the recent election of a Vacancy-in-See Committee (ViSC) as an illustrative case study.
The election of the Archbishop of Canterbury & Canterbury ViSC
The news of the death of Pope Francis has led to various explanations in the media as to how a new Pope will be elected. The Church of England is also in the process of choosing a new Archbishop of Canterbury and its processes too are both complex and significant. There are significant implications not just for the diocese of Canterbury but for the whole Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion and indeed the country as a whole given the Archbishop has a place of right in our legislature and is the highest ranking non-royal in the Order of Precedence.
As explained in more detail previously, the body making a nomination to the King (the Crown Nominations Commission or CNC) is itself composed of no less than 5 different groupings. One of these groupings, as in all nominations of diocesan bishops, is representatives of the diocese. They are in turn chosen by the Vacancy-in-See Committee (ViSC) of the diocese. The ViSC also does the important work of making clear what the diocese believes it needs in its new (Arch)bishop. The composition and hence the election of the ViSC is therefore also of some significance, especially as 3 of its members will ultimately join 14 others in choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury in a process where a group of only 6 members can block an appointment.
The ViSC is comprised of ex officio members who are involved in the senior leadership of the diocese or represent the diocese on General Synod and then a number of people elected by the members of the Diocesan Synod (in addition to those elected, up to 4 can be nominated by the Bishop’s Council). The rules relating to the ViSC including the running of its election of members are set out in this recently amended regulation (though it apparently lacks the full force of law).
The electoral system: The Single Transferable Vote
The election process takes place, as in other Church of England elections, by use of the electoral system known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) whose quite complex details are set out in this set of rules. This and the ViSC Regulation provide the key legal structures for the proper running of the ViSC election.
At the heart of STV is the principle that although multiple candidates will be elected by the voters, each individual voter has a single vote. This vote is, however, not simply attached permanently to one candidate (as in our Parliamentary elections where “X” marks the spot). Each elector’s single vote is in principle transferable to another candidate in whole or in part. It is transferred in an order determined by the voter who ranks candidates in their order of preference (1, 2, 3 etc….). Once the voter’s single vote is no longer of use to their top-ranked candidate because that candidate is removed from the race (either by being elected or being eliminated) it is transferred to their next preferred candidate. It may be transferred at full value (if none of the vote has yet been used to elect someone, usually this means their top preference is eliminated because they are bottom of the poll or cannot be elected for some other reason) or it may be transferred to another candidate at a reduced value. The latter happens if some of the vote has already been used to elect someone, i.e. their top preference at some point has been elected but with more votes than they needed to secure election. This then leaves some extra, un-needed votes (what is known as the surplus of their total votes) which transfer to other candidates on the basis of each voter’s preferences.
As will become clear, this system (which is already more complex than our normal electoral system) becomes even more complex when factors other than the voters’ preferences are also brought to bear on the counting of votes and awarding of seats. These factors, known as constraints, could include requirements such as a certain number of people having to be clergy or laity or female or living in a certain geographical area. Each and every constraint means that who gets elected is no longer simply a matter of voter preference. The people elected also have to pass various tests such as “at least half of them must be lay people” or “a least one must be a woman”. These requirements are required even if the voters’ actual preferences would lead to electing all male clergy.
Thirteen tips for running an election badly
The ViSC election for Canterbury provides a model for running an election badly (some features being applicable to any election, others only to STV elections). From it we can identify at least the following 13 helpful tips on how not to run an election.
Election Timing
- Call the election under severe time pressure and against good practice, by extraordinary means, if possible in the context of confusion and errors in relation to recent previous elections.
Brenda from Bristol became famous in 2017 when her reaction to Theresa May calling a surprise general election was “You’re joking. Not another one. Oh for God’s sake I can’t honestly, I can’t stand this”. A similar reaction would be understandable in relation to elections to Canterbury ViSC.
There should have been no need for an election in the first place. This is because the ViSC is meant “to be established at all times” (ViSC Reg Para 3(1)) and to begin its work, without even electing people to fill any vacancies on it (Para 7(3)), when a bishop announces they are stepping down.
The ViSC in place at the time of the Archbishop announcing his resignation on 12th November 2024 did indeed begin its work in December 2024 as reported as late as 20th January 2025, leading to the expectation that all CNC members would be known by mid-March. It, however, then stopped its work as it was discovered that when elected in 2022 only members of the diocesan Synod had been allowed to stand for it in a breach of the rules.
That ViSC was due to be replaced at the end of 2024 through a fresh election by the newly constituted Diocesan Synod. This duly took place and a ViSC elected for 2025-2027. It was, however, deemed not to be appropriate for this body to do the work either. This was it seems because at the time of its election it was stated that it would not be dealing with the current vacancy as the former ViSC was fulfilling that role.
Eventually, para 16 of the Regulation was invoked by which “the Archbishop…may, where difficulties arise, give whatever directions the archbishop considers appropriate for removing those difficulties” in order to call for this new ViSC election over two months after the vacancy arose. It is effectively doing the work that should have been the work of the ViSC elected in 2022 and nearing the end of its term when Archbishop Justin announced his resignation. This perhaps also explains the oddity that the membership of the ViSC working on the current vacancy is misleadingly listed on the diocesan website under a link which reads “The Results of the 2022 – 2024 Vacancy in See Committee Elections”. This is despite the fact those elections ran from opening of nominations on 10th Feb 2025 to counting of votes on 25th March 2025. In order for the Canterbury CNC to be able to meet for the first time as planned in May, the newly elected ViSC has since late March had to do in barely one month, including Holy Week and Easter, the work that would normally take probably 4-6 months.
Election Rules
- Change the rules for running the election while the election is underway.
The nominations opened as the General Synod opened and at the end of that week, on the final day of Synod, there was discussion of proposed changes to the ViSC Regulation. These changes had initially been brought to the House of Bishops back in September 2024. There it had been noted that “Whilst there is not time to change the Regulation before the next triennium of ViSCs being elected, it is proposed that this should still be addressed for the longer term”. Some of these proposed changes were passed and they came into effect from 14th February. Reportedly on legal advice, the new rules were then applied to the Canterbury ViSC election that had already begun, effectively changing the election rules mid-election.
- In those rule changes institute new rules that go against clearly stated good practice and ensure that in so doing the new rules also fail to provide sufficient guidance as to how to run the election given the new rules.
As noted above, STV which is designed to enable the outcome to enact as well as possible the preferences of voters is complicated whenever there is the introduction of “constraints”. This is why an appendix to the STV rules clearly states
When constraints are required in an election they impinge on the expressed wishes of the voters. The inclusion of Part 6, which addresses the way in which constraints are to be considered, is not intended as an encouragement to their use.
Central to the changes introduced mid-election (para 6A entitled “restriction on election and nomination”) were a totally novel set of constraints. These are based on what was called a “relevant connection” between individuals on, and/or individuals seeking to be elected to, the ViSC.
There was, however, no explanation given in the rules as to how these constraints would relate to any other constraints being applied when it came to running the election (for example constraints based on needing a certain number of clergy or lay people or people from a particular Archdeaconry) or to the preference of voters between candidates who shared a relevant connection.
- Make up—but never declare or explain—a new rule to fill the gap in the rules and make sure it ignores the wishes of the voters in determining how to count the votes.
In the ViSC election a difficulty arose once the nominations were closed because of the interplay of the following constraints. The election was required to:
- Elect 4 lay people from Ashford Archdeaconry out of 4 candidates (a diocesan imposed constraint not in the national Regulation);
- Elect 2 clergy from Ashford Archdeaconry out of 4 candidates (a diocesan imposed constraint not in the national Regulation);
- Elect only 1 of the two candidates from the Ashford Archdeaconry (in this case 1 clergy and 1 lay) with a relevant connection to each other (a new constraint in the national Regulation); and
- Elect therefore either a clergy candidate with sufficient first preference votes (10) to be duly elected but thereby only elect 3 not 4 lay people or a lay candidate with only one vote (presumably their own) and thereby eliminate the connected clergy candidate.
It was decided—though it is unclear by whom (or perhaps by a computer, it being unclear whether or how the software used to count votes was redesigned in the light of this new rule) or when in the process or even if there was an awareness of the significance of what was being decided—that it was more important to have 4 lay candidates elected than to respect the wishes of the voters. It was therefore decided to eliminate the candidate with 10 votes (a clergy woman) and so more votes than needed to be elected rather than the candidate connected to the same very large and theologically diverse parish with 1 vote.
- Be willing to ignore some of the public rules in how you run the election and also add in some distinctive rules of your own which are not public.
As noted below there are at least two aspects of the Canterbury ViSC election which have disregarded rules concerning how the election should be run (see tips 11 and 13). On drawing attention to this fact and raising concerns about election rules being ignored I was astonished to discover that part of the explanation for what had happened was “there are also Canterbury-specific rules, passed by Archbishop’s Council here many years ago, that also have significant impact”. I have not been able to find these rules anywhere and my enquiry as to whether they are public or can be made public (as would seem appropriate for a public election) has not been answered.
How many people need to be elected?
- Fail properly to ascertain how many candidates should be elected.
Under the ViSC rules the default situation is that all Diocesan Synod members (acting as a single electorate ie not voting by Houses) should elect 2 clergy and 2 lay people (para 5(1)). However, these numbers can be increased by a decision of the Bishop’s Council which is usually what happens. That number of 2 clergy and 2 laity may be exceeded but “only in so far as the bishop’s council of the diocese decides, having taken account of each ex officio member’s place of residence, that that is necessary to ensure” (para 5(2), italics added) three clearly-defined criteria. These relate to geography, balance of clergy and laity, and overall size of ViSC.
In Canterbury, the number of ex officio members at the time of this election was 13 with 9 clergy (including 3 bishops) and 4 laity. Their place of residence is given as
| Clergy (not bishops) | Laity | Total | |
| Ashford | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Canterbury | 5 (including Dean and Archdeacon) | 2 | 7 |
| Maidstone | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Total | 6 (9 including bishops) | 4 | 10 |
The rules therefore require at least 8 elected members (to ensure “that the Committee has at least 21 members”) and more lay people being elected than clergy (to ensure as far as possible equal numbers).
The other requirement is that the election should do what is necessary “to ensure that each archdeaconry in the diocese will be adequately represented”. Each Archdeaconry in Canterbury diocese comprises 5 deaneries with Ashford electing 41 members to Diocesan Synod, Canterbury electing 42 and Maidstone electing 39 (list of members elected for 2024-2027 here). The three Archdeaconries would, therefore, appear to be very similar in size. This would explain why they would each elect 6 members to the ViSC except that the election rule is to ensure adequate representation “having taken account of each ex officio member’s place of residence”. With the residence of ex officio members dividing as above it would seem that Canterbury is grossly over-represented among both clergy and laity.
It may be that the equal apportionment between Archdeaconries is part of the unpublished “Canterbury-specific rules” but if so this does appear to go against the national Regulation requiring consideration of the actual geographical spread among serving ex officio members (which changes over time). This is not irrelevant as it has led to a Canterbury-heavy ViSC (13 members compared to 7 each for the other two Archdeaconries as there is a clergy vacancy in Maidstone). Furthermore, in the election, remarkably, no less than 39 of the 88 first preference votes were cast for the 4 Ashford clergy standing. This contrasts with only 14 for the 3 Canterbury clergy standing (and 14 for the 6 Canterbury laity standing). Despite this, both Canterbury and Ashford could only elect 2 clergy. Here the constraints distorted the clear preferences and they did so because of a geographic constraint that was itself apparently contrary to the rules about constraints that was designed to ensure adequate representation of each archdeaconry.
- Give the voters misleading information about how many candidates they need to elect.
The election for the Canterbury ViSC was, in effect, 6 elections rolled into one election. There were elections for representatives from the 3 Archdeaconries and in each of these there were 2 elections: for 2 clergy seats and for 4 lay seats. This means that the aim was to elect 18 people overall within these 6 categories. However, in one Archdeaconry there were only 4 lay candidates and in one Archdeaconry there was only 1 clergy candidate. This meant that there were 5 candidates elected unopposed and 1 seat which was unable to be filled due to insufficient candidates for it being nominated. As a result, voters were really only being asked to elect 12 candidates not the 18 candidates they were led to believe they were electing.
Who can be elected?
- Rule as ineligible for election people who were eligible when the election was called and nominations opened, ideally these candidates should belong to under-represented groups.
In Canterbury at least 3 candidates who were eligible when nominations opened were judged ineligible for election. The 3 known candidates to whom this applied (there may have been others who withdrew their nomination on being told they would not be able to be elected) were the only two ordained women seeking election and a young candidate, probably much younger than any of the others nominated.
So why were these 3 candidates ruled ineligible? This leads to the next tip on how not to run an election and the details of the crucially important new “relevant connection” rule proposed by the Bishop of London and introduced by General Synod after nominations opened.
- Rule candidates out of being elected on the basis of a novel characteristic
- for which they have no responsibility,
- which they cannot easily change,
- which they may not even be aware applied to them until it was too late and nominations closed and were made public, and
- which opens up a path of malevolent manipulation on the part of opponents.
To rule out a candidate from election (no matter how popular they are) is a significant step. In Canterbury this was done on the basis of the new “relevant connection” rule introduced after the election was called. The aim of this is, basically, to prevent more than one person from the same worshipping community being on the ViSC. Primarily aimed, it seems, at preventing two people from the same large congregation being on the ViSC, the rule is in practice much more wide-ranging in scope. Two people nominated were ruled out and at least one, perhaps both, of these were because they were in the same worshipping community as an ex officio member (this effectively rules out anybody worshipping at the Cathedral as the Dean is always an ex officio member). Another person was eliminated because someone from their worshipping community was deemed elected unopposed (even though they had only one first preference vote to the other candidate’s ten). These two people with a “relevant connection” were worshipping in a very diverse team with 8 churches and 7 clergy that lists no less than 10 different churches on its website.
This latter case highlights the opening this new rule creates for what might be called “tactical” or “negative” nominations. Someone can be judged ineligible for election because another person from their worshipping community has been elected (perhaps unopposed before any votes are counted or even cast). This means that if there is a candidate one wishes to prevent being elected there is now an incentive to find someone in the same worshipping community to stand against them in the hope that this person will, at some stage in the election, render the unwanted candidate ineligible. As far as I know there is no evidence that this scenario was behind the Canterbury exclusion of an ordained woman in favour of a lay man but what cannot be denied is that the new rule opens up this tactic as a real possibility.
Who is on the ballot paper?
- Add to the ballot paper those known to be ineligible for election but do not make clear on the ballot paper they are ineligible or what you will do with any first preference votes cast for them.
The 3 candidates noted above whom it was quite simply impossible for the voters to elect, and about whom this was known before voting started, were nevertheless placed on the ballot. My understanding is that when it was pointed out that two of them were not eligible but that this was not clear on the ballot, voters were sent a separate message alerting them to this situation. There was, however, no such information about the other person whose relevant connection to another candidate was judged, on an interpretation of the new rule, to make her unelectable.
In accordance with the STV rules (Rule 3(3)) two candidates immediately had their first preference votes transferred to their second preference (or set aside if there was no second preference) and not counted. However, the third candidate had her ten first preference votes registered and it is not clear what happened to them and when in the subsequent election process.
- Also include on the ballot paper all candidates who will be elected unopposed to give voters the impression that they need their vote in order to be elected and do not make clear what you will do with any first preference votes they receive even though they do not need them.
Under the ViSC Rules (para 2(2)) and the STV Rules (Rule 24(1)) with a special emphasis on this in Appendix 2 candidates who are assured of election should not be on the ballot paper due to Rule 75 of the Church Representation Rules. This means that there were 5 candidates who were on the ballot paper but should not have been. One of these received the second equal highest number of first preference votes (11), the other 4 each received either 0, 1 or 2 votes meaning that 15 people used their single vote for candidates who were guaranteed election and should not have been on the ballot paper. Thankfully, under STV, that single vote is transferable but it is not clear at what point in the electoral process the votes were transferred. It is, for example, quite possible that the candidate with 11 votes was actually deemed elected on the basis of having passed the quota threshold and only his surplus votes transferred therefore meaning his votes were transferred at much lower than their full value.
There are various options here once this mistake has been made. The best solution would be for all 15 people who voted for candidates elected unopposed to have their second preferences immediately deemed to be their first preferences (as happened for the 2 on the ballot who were eliminated from the start). This would minimise the number of “wasted” votes. It is, however, possible that these 5 candidates (and also the one noted above as ineligible but having her 10 first preferences counted) were treated differently from each other in relation to their “wasted” votes. For example, the candidate who did pass the quota with 11 votes but was strictly elected unopposed could have been handled differently from those elected unopposed who had only one or two votes each and from the candidate who did pass the quota with 10 votes but was deemed ineligible for election.
The combination of these two different problems with the ballot paper means that 25 of the 88 first preference votes (over a quarter of those cast) were for 8 candidates whom it was able to be known from before the ballot papers were drawn up that they did not need anybody’s votes. This was because they were either elected unopposed or were ineligible for election. It remains, however, unknown what happened to all those 25 votes during the count.
How many votes to get elected?
- Do not at any stage in the process make clear how many votes a candidate needs in order to be elected.
Usually those standing for election know the basis on which they will succeed or fail. The rule may be something like “you need to get more votes than anyone else” or “you need to get a certain % of votes”. In STV it is only possible to calculate how many votes are needed to secure election when it is clear how many votes have been cast. Then, by dividing that number by one more than the number of seats to be filled, the winning post (technically the quota) is calculated (Rule 9 of STV Rules). Because of the lack of information provided about the result (see the next point) we are even now still not clear what the quota was to be elected to the ViSC.
What is even more concerning is that there appear to be at least two main options for the quota given what is known. Although not officially confirmed it appears that there were 88 first preference votes counted. These were distributed between 23 candidates on the first count (2 of the 25 on the ballot paper having already been excluded before the count as ineligible and their votes transferred to any second preference) apparently for 18 seats. This would give a low quota of just 4.63. However, as we have seen, there were in reality only 12 seats up for election as 5 seats had been filled unopposed and one seat was vacant. This leads to a quota of 6.77 as what was needed by any of the only 17 candidates genuinely up for election. This is the quota needed if the rules had been followed but as we have seen the rules were not followed.
Given the first preferences were counted and listed for candidates elected unopposed and one of the ineligible candidates it therefore seems most likely that the lower quota was used. This means that candidates reaching between 4.63 and 6.77 votes would have been declared elected when they should not have been. It also means that the calculation of how many votes to transfer to other candidates from an elected candidate (under STV Rule 11) was wrong. This is because this figure, known as the “surplus”, is defined as “the number of votes by which the total number of the votes, original and transferred, credited to a candidate exceeds the quota” (STV Rule 2(8)).
Exactly what happened and what the quota was determined to be is however not known because of the final thirteenth tip for how not to run an election…
What information should be given about the election result?
- Refuse to publish the result sheet showing on what basis people were elected despite being required to do so by the rules. This will make it impossible for anyone to tell if rules were broken, how new rules were implemented, and whether any of this changed the outcome of the election thus giving grounds for an appeal.
The STV rules are clear that a result sheet needs to be produced which sets out the transfer of votes, the total values of votes credited to each candidate after such a transfer, and the names of who has been elected (STV Rule 30). These sheets are usually instantly available as the count is done by computer but they can take some time to understand (those for the General Synod elections in Canterbury are linked from here and the even more complex ones for London are linked from here). These result sheets (which are often published in both a spreadsheet and a verbal count-by-count form) show how the final result was reached and bring transparency and accountability to the process. As the ViSC election is an election using STV these need to be available “for inspection by anybody qualified to vote in the election” (STV Rule 31) and supplied to each candidate within ten days of the declaration of the result (STV Rule 32).
I therefore asked some candidates ten working days after the election if they had received this result sheet as I was interested to understand how the election had been run given the problems and concerns set out above. When they said they had not been received I wrote on 11th April to a number of people in the diocese and national church institutions asking about this given my concerns and the STV rules set out above about publishing the result. On April 17th, having heard nothing more after an initial acknowledgment and notification my email would be discussed, I wrote again. Later that day I received a reply from one the people which stated that “we do not publicly release the full results sheets for any committee elections” though noting the exception of Synod elections. Appeals were also made to the fact “that some of our work is bound by confidentiality, privilege or contracts with third parties” although I was assured that “we do strive to be as open and transparent as possible with all our stakeholders and have been able to provide more detailed information to people who are directly involved”.
As I pointed out in my response, this appears in clear contravention of the STV rules. The release of the names of those elected but no more details is, as I wrote, “the equivalent of a returning officer at the end of a parliamentary count declaring who has been elected MP but then refusing to issue the number of votes cast for each candidate”.
The need for the result sheet in full is, I explained, crucially important for, among other things
- the election process to be seen to have integrity,
- as near universal trust as possible in the electoral process, its administration, and the declared result,
- all those interested in the election being able to understand why certain people were elected and others not elected, and
- an appeal being able to be made if, on the basis of the result sheet, there is evidence of any errors in the process leading to an erroneous declaration.
The refusal to produce the result sheet undermines all these goods.
Furthermore, if the result sheet shows that none of the errors set out above made any material difference to the outcome then publishing it would clearly lay to rest any concerns and suspicions. However, as I wrote, “the determined refusal to release that result sheet can only lead to suspicion that there are in fact serious flaws in the election process which did have material consequences on the outcome”. This is especially serious I pointed out as if, in reality, “the failures led to the wrong candidates being elected according to the voting rules then not to release the result sheet as required by the rules is tantamount to covering up the mistakes and thereby corrupting the election”.
So what?
As explained in relation to the first tip on how not to run an election, this new ViSC election proved necessary because the previous ViSC election process failed to allow all eligible candidates to be nominated for election. There were, however, I believe no questions raised as to whether those elected from all the candidates on the ballot were the right people. In this new situation, however, we have the question as to whether the process of determining who on the ballot should be elected was properly conducted. This question is, to put it bluntly, one of whether one or more candidates were deprived of rightful election with others being wrongly elected to serve on the ViSC.
The very fact that the rules were quite clearly not followed would, for many people, be a serious matter of concern in and of itself. Professor Helen King recently commented on an evangelical parish whose PCC voted to withhold parish share but had to “rerun the process after failing to comply with church rules”: “They don’t specify which rules, but that doesn’t sound good”.
The matter is more serious if the failing to comply with church rules had a significant impact on who was elected. Here there are already three areas where there are grounds for concern given what is already known about the election process
My initial charitable presumption had been that key decisions and failures in the election process had no (or at least no significant) effect on the election result apart from the use of, and a particular interpretation of, the new “relevant connection” rule. This (see tip 8) meant that the only two clergywomen standing and a young person (perhaps the only young person) standing were ruled ineligible. It now also appears (see tip 6) that the election was set up to secure the election of more Canterbury candidates than it should have done compared to Ashford and Maidstone candidates, with a particularly strong negative impact on Ashford clergy whom the voters strongly supported in their first preference votes. Finally, it is noteworthy that the 25 first preference votes for 6 candidates on the ballot who were either elected unopposed or judged ineligible (see tips 10 and 11) were not equally distributed between those 6 candidates nor between different theological perspectives: 21 of these currently unaccounted-for votes were for two evangelical candidates who are unhappy with the church’s recent developments on PLF.
What next in Canterbury?
I had hoped that simply waiting for the result sheet would make it clear exactly what happened and that I would find that any errors were corrected, and no more introduced, during the count. However, the determination of Canterbury diocese to follow all 13 tips on how not to run the election has led them to refuse to release that result sheet. This, sadly, can only lead to suspicion that there are in fact serious flaws in the election process which did have material consequences on the outcome.
Matters would be much clearer—for better or for worse—if Canterbury diocese simply complied with the rules and provided the full result sheet. This would show how the votes were counted and help clarify whether, and if so to what extent, there were errors in the count which had an effect on who was declared elected. If this is not done it may be that an appeal against the result could provide the information but the appeal process is not clear and without the result sheet there is no concrete evidence giving grounds for an appeal on the basis of clear errors in the transfer of votes between candidates.
An additional complication in all this is the speed at which things have progressed meaning that the work of the ViSC has been completed in the month since it was elected and is also potentially a problem. It may be that, despite all the problems and even if they led to the wrong people being elected, the ViSC’s Statement of Need and the 3 ViSC members it has elected to serve on the CNC (an election that occurred within 5 days of the ViSC being constituted when normally it would be near the end of the process after months of working together) are able to be widely recognised as fairly representing the diocese. If that is the case, even if the ViSC election proves to have been seriously flawed, the wider ongoing damage may be not too great.
If, however, the Statement of Need is not acceptable to many or the 3 CNC members do not adequately represent the diversity of the diocese in some significant way (for example in terms of churchmanship and theological perspective, stance on PLF and same-sex marriage, or character of their worshipping communities) then the flaws in the election of the ViSC become much more significant.
Given the seriousness of the problems, none of the possible next steps are really appealing, particularly if following these 13 tips has led to the wrong people being elected and the subsequent work of the ViSC not being recognisably representative as a result of this. There would appear to be a range of broad options available including:
- refuse to acknowledge or address the problems created by the flawed ViSC election process, double down, keep the result sheet secret, and carry on regardless (despite the likely damaging loss of confidence in the work of the CNC);
- revisit any areas of the ViSC’s work (such as the Statement of Need and/or the election of 3 members to the CNC) which cannot be recognised as representative and may have arisen due to the flawed election process and result and seek to rectify these to regain confidence eg seek to co-opt an additional (but crucially non-voting) member to serve on the CNC from Canterbury diocese;
- recount the votes to ascertain what the result would have been if it had been run properly in the first place, publish and explain the count, and reconstitute the ViSC to start its work again with the proper members duly elected;
- rerun the whole ViSC election from scratch (thereby almost inevitably delaying the CNC process for Canterbury) making clear from the start and throughout the process how the rules are being interpreted and followed and releasing the result sheet in full.
It may well prove to be the case that the breadth and depth of the problems are such that only rerunning the whole election process is a proportionate response that can rectify the consequences of the errors, restore confidence in the national and diocesan processes that led to them, and ensure that the failings do not damage the work of the CNC in discerning who should be the next Archbishop.
What can be learned from all this?
As the 13 tips make clear, this example of how not to run an election arose because of a “perfect storm” of a range of different process errors and judgments created by a number of different people and bodies. No one person alone is ultimately responsible. The problems arise out of a combination of:
- Introducing new rules nationally mid-election and then following those locally on national advice;
- Those new rules being hurriedly introduced with insufficient scrutiny and proving flawed;
- A failure to follow long-established rules locally in this election (but perhaps, in some cases, on erroneous national advice);
- Overall lack of transparency and hence comprehensibility due to the local decision (on whose legal or other advice is unclear) not to release the result sheet.
In my correspondence it has been noteworthy that those involved in the process centrally have been very clear that they view this as all a matter for the diocese while those in the diocese have emphasised that they have constantly sought and followed advice, including advice from those at the centre in the National Church Institutions.
Whatever is to happen in relation to the Canterbury ViSC and its important work towards the CNC’s nomination of a new Archbishop of Canterbury in supplying a Statement of Need and 3 CNC members, at the very least there appears to be an urgent need for a thorough review so that lessons can be learned. This should cover both how the ViSC election was run and also the wider implications of the practical outworking of the new ViSC regulations passed by Synod in February and applied for the first time in Canterbury diocese but to be used in all future ViSC elections.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, (where his wife Lis Goddard is vicar) Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the 2023 subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.
There surely must be grounds for a legal challnge to the refusal to release the results sheet, in clear breach of the VISC regulations.
But I am not sure VISC regulations are legal; I think their status is just guidance. So I am not sure a legal challenge is possible.
The STV stuff (including providing a results sheet) seems to be presented as “rules” not guidance: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/gs-2167-stv-rules-feb-2020-final.pdf#page=11
The NASUWT has been forced to reopen nominations for General Secretary this week after legal advice appeared to suggest it had failed to follow its own rules.
They’re an Act of Synod. Don’t think the CofE has ever tested this. Probably moral, not legal force. “If it is desired that the instrument or resolution be published formally as the embodiment of the will or opinion of the Church of England as expressed by the whole body of the Synod, it is to be affirmed and proclaimed as an Act of Synod in accordance with the following provisions of this Standing Order.” (SO 41) [Interesting that that part of the women priests legislation was treated as though it had legal force even though it was only an Act of Synod] But the regulations have enough custom and practice behind them for someone in the Diocese of Canterbury to make a proper fuss about this abuse of power and gerrymandering, and to threaten judicial review.
That sounds similar to Archbishop Welby’s ‘prohibition’ on funerals and the priest visiting their church for ‘private prayer’ during Covid. What was prohibition suddenly became ‘guidance’ when it suited.
Yes exactly. Andrew and I had an excellent morning discussing all this and it was my view that a legal challenge was likely, and indeed that this mess opened the possibility of a later challenge to the actual eventual nomination. So how gratifying that yours was the first comment
By the way, it would be for the judges to decide when a rule is not a rule.
Tip 14.
Use both smoke and mirrors
As it is part of a Crown process, is there not recourse to legal challenge or at least formal complaint to the CNC (which I believe is under parliamentary rules)? It’s not just a diocesan matter. If the CNC’s composition is seriously in question then it is void.
The last GS elections were frought with issues – one tiny example from one diocese: a priest with PTO could stand but not vote, but was still given a voting paper, and had to point this discrepancy out.
I don’t believe so, since the protocols for the ViSC process are commendatory and not legally enforceable.
The cowards and incompetents responsible for this mess are not going to feel embarrassed unless they are named.
If the rules are for guidance, what are their purpose?
The application of discretionary power may be subject to judicial review.
But if the processes of ssm/b have not resulted in litigation, it is not going to happen here.
Accountability seems to be in short supply.
Perhaps no one believes any more that there’s anything to be gained from litigation. The C of E is broken as an organisation, and the only positive reasons for remaining within it will be found here and there in local situations. Even those may well have an uncertain future but God’s work should never be seen as tied to one particular organisation in perpetuity.
It may be unsettling for those of us who would prefer a dependable spiritual home but moving on when God calls is the very essence of a Christian’s life. There’s excitement in that, along with new things to discover about God and ourselves!
Don – there are words in the NT about not taking Christian disputes to secular courts. Which in my book is another reason it’s wrong for the CofE’s rules to be part of the ‘law of the land’ in the first place.
Right now it would look sensible to simply recognise that the process so far is too messed up to continue, and start again. And keep it simple.
But as usual with the CofE the big problem is the one you’re not going to tackle, the unbiblical entanglement of church and state and how that inevitably divides the church’s focus and purposes; an established church is trying to serve two masters, and it doesn’t work ….
I don’t think it has anything to do with church and state. I think it has to with people not wanting to admit they have messed up.
Ian – my point is that this particular ‘mess up’ is happening in a church whose relationship with the surrounding world is distorted and rather too many involved in the church have as a result mixed goals – very evidently so in the sexuality disputes.
So move along to the next thread as the process for electing next Archbishop of Canterbury is clearly of no concern or interest for a nonconformist Baptist like you.
Anyway, does the Papal conclave set out who voted for which cardinal and when? No, so I don’t see why the C of E is going to be any different in setting out how the CNC members voted
move along to the next thread as the process for electing next Archbishop of Canterbury is clearly of no concern or interest for a nonconformist Baptist like you.
You don’t run this blog, T1. Ian does. Why not start your own to peddle your ill-informed views on church mechanics and history?
T1, no.
You are saying that everyone has to claim membership of a maximum of one of the *human* Christian organisations.
You are forbidding people – on what authority? – from being mere Christians.
Or from belonging to the church militant.
Or from being disciples of Jesus.
No. Instead, if someone is a Christian they understand all other Christians to be their brothers and sisters.
But you are saying human organisations are more important (when they are clearly less) than spiritual realities.
Anybody who is a member of any Christian denomination is a Christian.
However who the next Archbishop of Canterbury is is a matter for Anglicans not other denominations, just as who the next Pope is is a matter for Roman Catholics not other denominations
No. You are ruling out all the very many people who see being a Christian as the main thing, and therefore do not align to any denomination nor have any interest in organisational membership, but function happily in harmony with many of them. A very high proportion of people would change denomination-of-attendance if they changed town for example. And the point is that they would scarcely notice.
T1
Unfortunately the CofE’s position as the national church of England means that what it does can reflect upon how the public see other Christians too; who you elect as AoC is therefore of much “concern and interest” to all of us, as also when you bring yourselves into disrepute with a process that is clearly flawed and incompetent. If you are part of God’s church you are also responsible for the effects of your conduct upon the wider church. And to refuse such responsibility is to exclude yourself from the wider church, surely not a good step.
Evangelicals may happily switch from a Baptist to Pentecostal to independent church but those churches have no national or global leader anyway. They would be very unlikely though to join a high church C of E church, even if they might join an evangelical C of E church and they certainly would not join a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church
As the national church inevitably the C of E will also as established church need a leader who represents Christianity in a way most English people are sympathetic with ie not rejecting recognition of LGBT couples and not rejecting divorcees, certainly if not the party at fault for a marriage breakdown or women in leadership roles. That also means work needs to be done on safeguarding by the new Archbishop too yes
So the national church should reflect the will of the people and the politicians they elect above the will of God as revealed in scripture? Not much point in having such a church is there T1?
It is a national church which interprets scripture in line with the values of the English monarch and his people and that has been the case since the Church of England was created to replace the Roman Catholic church as the national church in the 16th century
T1
You write “As the national church inevitably the C of E will also as established church need a leader who represents Christianity in a way most English people are sympathetic with ie not rejecting recognition of LGBT couples and not rejecting divorcees, certainly if not the party at fault for a marriage breakdown or women in leadership roles”.
And that the CofE “… is a national church which interprets scripture in line with the values of the English monarch and his people”.
But Christianity is not national, it comes from God and is expressed in the Bible, words of God to which the nations are subject, not the other way round. What the Bible says by the normal rules of language interpretation is equally binding on all nations and is not to be modified to suit the values of any particular secular nation. To give a nation such authority over the word of God is outright idolatry, valuing/worshipping that nation above God, an outright breach of the first commandment.
If the Bible teaches that gay sex is wrong, it is wrong regardless of the sympathies of the English people. That and the other points you mention there are to be settled by normal interpretation of the Bible, not by the values of secular nations.
And that is one of the big reasons ‘establishment’ and similar arrangements are simply un- or even anti-Christian. The Church is supposed to be itself “God’s holy nation” on earth, standing if necessary against ‘the World’ as represented by the secular nations and their governments and peoples.
Evidently, T1, you have yet to learn the difference between interpreting scripture and ignoring scripture.
The Church of England IS national and always have been. Christianity may be global but there are many churches which are Christian. Christianity alone does not distinguish the C of E.
Interpretation of the word of God in the Church of England is down to majority vote of Synod and 2/3 vote to change doctrine and by such votes of Synod alone.
Jesus never said gay sex was wrong, certain passages of the Old Testament did but then there is nothing exclusively even Christian about them, Jews and indeed often Muslims share the book of Abraham with Christians. St Paul opposed gay sex yes but he also opposed women priests and the C of E has had them for decades now with rather less uproar from evangelicals. Jesus also opposed divorce except for sexual immorality but again most evangelicals don’t seem too shocked the C of E has remarried divorcees in Church for decades either. So no, it is just basically the gays who must be lambasted as the worst sinners of all, yet as the C of E is established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal those views were correctly rejected by most of Synod when they voted for PLF
You again just want to turn the C of E into a nonconformist Baptist church like you belong to. Well tough, the C of E is not a Baptist church but a Catholic but Reformed established church of England
‘Jesus never said gay sex was wrong.’ Yes he did! He explicitly affirmed marriage as male and female as in Genesis 1 and 2; he explicitly called people from porneia (which included sex outside this male-female marriage), and in other ways affirmed the discinctive Jewish sexual ethic.
Not a singly commentator for the first 1,980 years of Christianity have claimed anything different. That is why there is almost a universal consensus amongst even liberal critical commentators that that was Jesus’ view of sex and marriage.
If you think this is wrong, could you point me to the verses where Jesus says incest is wrong?
T1, you seem to believe that you need a church to make sense of the Bible for you. The Catholic church got away with that in largely illiterate Europe for a thousand years but it will never again be the monster it was then, because Catholics now read their Bible.
Don’t you know that the gospels are written in a deliberatly dumbed-down form of Greek, the common language of the near east of 2000 years ago, specifically so that as many people as possible could read it for themselves?
Nope, he affirmed marriage as between a male and a female, pornea as you well know is focused on having sex with multiple partners rather than committing to one in lifelong union and applies to heterosexuals as much as gay or lesbian people. Incest is against English law anyway unlike same sex marriage or consensual same sex acts so is obviously still opposed by the English established church
T1, the world is full of New Testament scholars. What is the worth of the views of someone who cannot even spell ‘porneia’ and tries to make out that (astonishing as it would sound even if there were evidence, which there is none) that the contemporary use of the word porneia in these environs ruled same-sex unions in rather than out. Where on earth do you get that idea from, and why should we listen when there are so many New Testament scholars that we can listen to first?
There are two issues here
1. Is what has been done legal? I’m not clever enough to battle that out with lawyers, but if it isn’t then clearly it should be put right as it was with the VISC that was appointed irregularly
2. What do we do going forward? To my mind Diocese fail in two regards
a. They do not routinely review the make up of the VISC prior to the election. They should – a report should be produced and the discussion and outcome should be properly minuted and reported to Diocesan Synod
b. To my mind there is confusion in the local constraints. There is one for lay / clergy, there is another for fair representation across archdeaconeries. There is nothing in the VISC regulations to say these should be combined. We should not be voting for x clergy in y archdeaconry. It is one electorate presumably so that the vote can be conducted across the diocese and across all candidates. The one with the highest number of votes should be elected, provided there is room in the total lay / clergy, within their archdeaconry, and without a relevant connection (if any of these constraints apply to the highest they shouldn’t really be standing anyway, but if they do stand their vote should be redistributed straight off). Once the highest is appointed, consideration should then be given to excluding any others who cannot now stand and their votes redistributed etc.
The crazy think about the ViSC is that they knew Justin was going to retire soon anyway, so there was really no excuse for not having their ducks in a row.
I think your suggested process is sensible in the light of the constraints. But that would mean running it manually and not using the STV system.
Some thoughts,
i) The multiple constraints creating ambiguities of guarded and excluded candidates, together with the subjective interpretation of those ‘rules’ (including the nonsense of excluding one candidate because someone else in their nine church parish is automatically elected, despite the fact on a day to day basis they have nothing to do with each other) has led to a position where the eSTV software cannot handle the vote by itself, so manual intervention is required. This is all the result of activists in Synod trying to ‘fix’ the electoral system in the name of equality, but in doing so have created enormous inequalities.
In basic economic / game theory terms, this is market manipulation and it *always* leads to detrimental outcomes. We see something similar currently in the USA where the tariffs that are designed to be “more fair” to Americans are actually ramping up prices and causing massive economic fallout. Manipulating election systems always leads to inequitable outcomes.
Ultimately it stems from a large portion of Synod seeking to achieve equality of outcome rather than equality of access, whilst not understanding the intricacies of the STV system. Once you start saying ‘x members must be of category y’ you manipulate the election. This is especially perverse when you then have category y, z and whatever needing to have their numbers, but those criteria are in opposition to each other (i.e. the perverse situation in the election where the woman with one of the highest vote tallies of all candidates was excluded from the outset).
ii) Added to this, you have the Diocese not knowing what it’s doing (or at the very least giving that impression), being given bad / incorrect advice, and then creating a culture of superiority / lack of scrutiny (“no, how dare you ask for the vote sheets”) at a time when trust is at an all time low in the Church in general.
*If* there is any form of rerun there MUST be some form of independent scrutiny of the process, the decisions on exclusions / application of rules AND a guarantee of full transparency.
There must also be an apology – it is utterly unacceptable that for the SECOND time the process has been incorrectly carried out – someone must be held responsible.
The analogy with tariffs aka import duties is strained beyond usefulness for any number of reasons (they have further consequences than the one you mentioned, good and bad for differing sets of people); but I agree wholeheartedly with your ecclesiastical point.
Who should make the apology?
I think it’s the Bishop ultimately who is responsible. All the people involved are her officers. And it needs to be a proper “We did X, X was wrong, I am responsible for X” apology, not a “we’re sorry if people are upset” weasel.
It may be that the eSTV system itself would have needed expensive reprogramming to incorporate all the twists and turns, but Peter Ould suggests something more serious, namely the need for subjective interpretation of the rules. If election rules aren’t completely algorithmic then the result of an election is no longer in the hands of the voters but in the hands of those counting. If the process was part automatic and part manual that clearly makes it even more important for the full working of the results to be published. If that isn’t done, it seems to amount to an admission that the counters determined (some part of) the result, in ways that they are not prepared to explain.
This is of clear wider public interest because the Archbishop of Canterbury has state functions. He/she will be a privy counsellor, a member of the House of Lords, and so on. If the process of appointment is flawed in this way, it has wide serious consequences.
It would be good to think that the representatives actually elected would realise that the legitimacy of the process is in doubt and they themselves should insist on full transparency of the election — or else stand down so that the election has to be rerun.
A huge factor that opposes any rerun or amendment, is the derision of the CoE which would follow in public forums. Not a good look. Any new, replacement ABoC would be hobbled from the outset, and already may be.
Actually I think the Church of England would run itself rather well wthout an Archbishop of Canterbury, and certainly better than some recent ones. Can we ditch York too, please?
No, as the C of E is a church with bishops of apostolic succession. What next, a Roman Catholic church with no Pope?
Good idea.
Do you not know that the internal history of the Roman Catholic church in the last 700 years has largely been a tussle between proponents that ultimate authority rests with a general ecumenical council of its bishops (‘conciliarism’), and those who believe it rests with the papacy? It took a Council convened by a powerful Germanic ruler to knock heads together and end a lifetime-long disgrace by which there had been two rival claimants to the papacy, each with their own papal courts, in the 14th and early 15th century. After unity had been restored, the Pope threatened to excommunicate anybody even calling for a council to question his decrees. The tussle continued in quiet until the papacy decisively won at the First Vatican Council in 1870 by getting itself declared infallible whenever it said it was. That piece of hubris will come back to bite the Vatican when a heretic wins a conclave…
Yet either way there was still going to be a Pope, the question was more over the amount of power the Papacy should have
No.
Even I agreed with your “apostolic succession ” stance…
…the lack of an Archbishop makes not a jot of difference. It’s not promulgated on a magic number of bishops. And the ABofC is not the holder of the “I’m the only apostolic successor bishop” badge.
He is though leader of a nationally organised church and the Church of England is a nationally organised church which needs a leader for all its English churches and cathedrals. That makes it different to say Pentecostal, Baptist or independent evangelical churches which are locally organised and managed solely by their own ministers and not nationally managed even if they may loosely affiliate with other such churches. The C of E is not a global church under one leader, as the Roman Catholic church is under the Pope (the AofC is only first amongst equals and symbolic leader only of the Anglican communion) but it is still a national church requiring a national leader
T1
It depends what you mean by ‘nationally organised’. Practicalities of various kinds can mean that ‘non-conformist’ churches may be nationally organised; sometimes as associations of independent churches, sometimes more centralised. BUT – they are independent of the nation itself.
The problem of the CofE is precisely that it is not independent but deeply entangled in the nation, set up by a secular ruler and with a successor to that ruler as somehow the ‘supreme governor’. That is a whole different ball game. And also rather importantly an unbiblical and therefore unapostolic ball game. The whole ‘monarchical bishop’ system is biblically questionable – in the NT churches are governed by groups of elders rather than such single quasi-monarchs, and the title ‘episkopos’ is simply an alternative title for those ‘elders’ pointing to the nature of the job as managing rather than the (relative) maturity required.
And the Church is international or supranational – a church as narrowly national as Anglicanism is a contradiction in terms and a contradiction of the Bible….
By nationally organised I mean led by Bishops and Archbishops primarily although at the very least with doctrine and policy determined by a central council, like say the National Council and Council of Assembly of the Church of Scotland or the Methodist Conference. Baptist, Pentecostal and independent evangelical churches have neither.
The Church of England was set up by Henry VIII precisely to be the national church with the monarch as its Supreme Governor. It then evolved to be a Catholic but Reformed Church with bishops of apostolic succession and with the BCP providing the focus for its services. Those are the core reasons for its existence.
Your determination to convert it into a nonconformist church without the King at its head or Bishops of apostolic succession means it would have no reason to exist anyway. Baptist and Pentecostal churches already do that.
The only truly international church is the Roman Catholic church as the Pope and Vatican determines its doctrine and core leaders globally. Independent evangelical churches may exist everywhere but they can take their own stance on issues and scripture interpretation and stand alone with no national let alone international leadership, no bishops, just run by their own minister
T1
There is a massive difference between an independent body organised on a national level for practical convenience, and on the other hand a body constitutionally entangled in the state. God’s Church needs to be independent of the state.
What you see as the CofE’s ‘core reasons’ to exist are the worldly reasons of the king and nation of England. And actually therefore NO REASONS AT ALL for the existence of a Christian Church. THE Church exists for God’s reasons.
I want the CofE to become non-conformist, to disentangle itself from England, precisely so that it can be fully the Christian Church it should be, a Church serving only one Master, God.
I find myself increasingly puzzled about the value of the ‘apostolic succession’ notion. Surely the very fact of separation from Rome also breaks the apostolic succession there? And looking at the current state of the CofE presumably all the bishops have equally ‘apostolic succession’ – yet far from this securing unity and continuity of belief cleatly at least half the bishops must currently be wrong and unapostolic on the sexuality issue, and surely that’s a problem for your version of apostolic succession whichever half of the bishops are right. Oddly you seem to approve of the half which in its teaching is out of succession with pretty much all previous bishops??!!??
Again your attitude to Rome seems inconsistent – I repeat, if Rome has the valid succession how come you aren’t their adherent rather than the CofE ? And again, doesn’t the separate existence of the CofE imply that Rome is deeply faulty…
Yes I know a nonconformist Baptist like you think the Church of England is unbiblical and should not exist but basically become a Baptist church in all but name. Yet we the Anglican majority in England don’t want to become Baptists like you, so tough! Nor do we want to become Roman Catholic, if we did we would already have left for those denominations. No we want our Catholic but Reformed Church, with bishops of apostolic succession and PLF unlike Baptists and Penetecostals but also women priests and bishops and the King as our supreme governor not the Pope unlike the Roman Catholic church and we ain’t going to change it!
T1/Simon
Yes, we know what you ‘want’; but what Christianity IS is not determined by what T1 or the King of England or indeed the entire Anglican church ‘wants’ – Christianity is determined by what the Word of God says, and actually as per the Articles that is the actual Anglican position. What you ‘want’ has close to zero value – the issue is what GOD WANTS.
You have said you don’t believe the King should be Supreme Governor of the C of E nor that it should have bishops of apostolic succession, 2 key defining principles of the C of E as set out in the very articles you mention
Stephen well summarises how the whole ‘apostolic succession’ thing has notable holes in it, and is in fact self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be used as a basis.
It is remarkable how people get so precious about one random denomination not splitting and being unified when that denomination is a split-off offshoot through and through in the first place. They should get out more.
As to T1 saying all the time ‘we want’, that only suggests a position based on selfishness. Which is not only the wrong basis, but close to the worst possible basis.
Nor am I sure who ‘we’ are. The word suggests agreement on this point, which by definition there isn’t.
T1/Simon
You write “You (ie me, SL) have said you don’t believe the King should be Supreme Governor of the C of E nor that it should have bishops of apostolic succession, 2 key defining principles of the C of E as set out in the very articles you mention”
There is a kind of hierarchy in the 39 Articles; the articles relating to the place of scripture are truly foundational, declaring in effect the basis of all the others. Until and unless those articles are overturned all the others are potentially subject to correction by better understanding of scripture.
After the Church was ‘hijacked’ by the Roman Empire the biblical teaching on church and state became distorted in favour of excessive authority for secular rulers. The place assumed by the Kings of England is part of that distortion and is not what the scripture actually says about church/state relations. By the prime principle of scriptural authority it needs to be corrected.
Remind me which of the Articles teaches ‘apostolic succession’? If any??
The CofE arose in a particular historic moment and represents not a final conclusion but a stage in recovering the original apostolic teaching of scripture from the overlays that had arisen after the afore-mentioned Imperial ‘hijack’. Even between Henry and Elizabeth there were major changes. Ideally there should have been further reformation to agree even better with scripture, but things ‘froze out’ and settled at a point that suited royal selfishness rather than agreement with God’s Word. Anglicanism is still inherently ‘serving two masters’ as a result and it is really time the CofE paid attention to THE Master who pointed out that serving two masters doesn’t work!!
We proper Anglicans, not those who just want to turn it into a Baptist church in all but name
The place of scripture is not distinctly Anglican in the way the role of the bishops of apostolic succession is and even more distinctly for the C of E is the role of the King as its head as that distinguishes it from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches in particular, as does the BCP.
Of course in any case Synod now determines by majority how the C of E interprets scripture not the King and has done for almost a century.
T1/Simon
Of course the place of scripture is not distinctively Anglican but the principle of other churches too. But like it or not it is there in Anglican belief that things must be proven by scripture. And the place you wish to give the king of England is decidedly not provable by scripture – much to the contrary, scripture teaches a different view of secular rulers.
I repeat – where in the Articles does it demand ‘apostolic succession’?
Synod is to interpret scripture, fine; but it is not free to contradict it.
I repeat, your determination to turn the C of E into a Baptist church, by removing the King as its Supreme Governor, by removing its Bishops and by replacing the BCP and by refusing to accept Synod’s interpretation of scripture will never be accepted by diehard Anglicans like me. Nor by definition by the majority of Synod. So tough!
It’s very saddening isn’t it.
This needs to be put right, soon, because right now it looks rather like corruption rather than simple incompetence; a deliberate obfuscation of the truth by the diocese.
As one of the other commenters already said, whoever speaks publicly to clarify and apologise needs to be specific about the errors they’re recognising. A simple “sorry for the confusion” is not going to cut it.
Mat
Perhaps we all need to be careful about language such as, the ‘abuse of power and gerrymandering, and to threaten judicial review’ in this process. Claiming that others’ motives are impure or that they are deliberately abusing power is very risky and, strangely enough, is something we usually resent others doing to us. One consequence could be that the role, ministry and authority of the next Archbishop is undermined in advance so that those who may disagree with them over an issue we feel passionately about will feel justified in criticising them publicly. And that at the very time we need an archbishop through whom the Church (and to some extent the country) can rebuild trust. Perhaps, now that Andrew Goddard has made his point so clearly, we could move on to praying for those involved in the appointment and for whoever takes on this huge responsibility at a time when various pressure groups are very actively at work e.g. in General Synod and could make their life extremely difficult. Once a decision is made we also need to be prepared for the media to have a laser-like focus on disagreements and contact interviewees in order to create a public spectacle of disagreement.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury can only be appointed by a two thirds vote of its members. The voting members are the two current Archbishops (or a Diocesan Bishop acting on their behalf as will be partly the case for the next A of C), 6 members elected from the Vacancy in See Committee of the Diocese and 6 ‘Central Members’ elected from the General Synod and now 5 members of the Anglican Communion as well.
A full online consultation form was available for all C of E members and members of the wider Anglican communion to fill in as well for the first time before the appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury. So there are really no grounds to suggest a proper appointment has not been made
Mayday, Mayday, Mayday…
Andrew, Thank you for the clarity. It does appear to be a terrible way to run an election. I don’t think that anyone can be happy about this. This will be a problem for anyone who emerges from the already complex process as the new ABC. It is something they do not need.
Just a question: Do you men PLF not LLF? Have I missed something?
(‘two evangelical candidates who are unhappy with the church’s recent developments on PLF. ‘)
“Prayers of Love and Faith”, which the CoE liberals are trying to get approved as the next step after their biased “Living in Love and Faith” initiative. See Psephizo essays passim.
PLF has already been approved by majority vote of all 3 houses of Synod. It was actually the middle way between no recognition of same sex couples and civilly married same sex couples at all as many conservatives wanted and full same sex marriages in C of E churches as most liberals wanted
Where would you stand if Synod were to vote for a middle way between God and the devil?
Well technically provided it didn’t go full devil it could
The unpublished legal advice says that it would be difficult to claim that the PLF are not indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church in B30.
No, that would have required Synod to vote for full same sex marriage in C of E churches but by less than the required 2/3 majority
Thank you- I have been distracted and had not seen Prayers of Love and Faith shortened to PLF. My bad. Middle ways are usually unpopular with almost all. It is not a workable long term solution.
The liberals know that; for them it is just prying the door open a little further. The evangelicals understand that, and so it is their red line.
So given that PLF will remain, the evangelicals have enough votes to block same sex marriage in C of E churches in Synod but the liberals had enough votes to get PLF through while falling short of the 2/3 majority needed for same sex marriage
Some of the suggestions here “just to let it go ” are a pragmatic response and possibly based on experience of the powers that be closing ranks on issues they don’t want to address, especially where reputational damage may be concerned. That’s something I can understand, as it takes a lot of time and energy to call power to account and it’s a thankless task.
But these issues have an unfortunate habit of coming back and biting people on the proverbial.
I don’t think there is much, if any, evidence of conspiracy in the Canterbury ViSC election – just cock up followed by cover up. At the very least, lessons need to be learned. At the worst, the outcome may affect directly who the next ABC is, whether they can keep the CofE and Communion together, where any divide falls if the CofE splits, and whether an Established Church is tenable. Some may welcome institutional change and disestablishment – but that’s not the way to achieve it.
For goodness sake, there are 5 voting members of the Anglican Communion on the CNC now, 6 members of Synod are represented as well as the dioceses. Conservative evangelicals will likely whinge regardless, they even would whinge if Martyn Snow got it and he is closest of the candidates to their wing. As for the established church that is not changing, no main party leader is pushing disestablishment. Yet they do want a Church of England that looks like the England it is church of and will make needed reforms after recent sex abuse cases, hence the Bishop of Chelmsford, a woman who is pro Parish, accepts PLF and wants greater action on safeguarding is favourite
My intention was to suggest a spectrum from “at least” to “worst”. All the points I included in my worst case scenario have been alluded to in the comments above. In no way did I intend it to be read as “most likely” or even “likely”!
But my main point was supposed to be that, irrespective of outcome, the integrity of the election is important. Very important in my opinion. And at the least, lessons need to be learned. I don’t have much confidence they will be.
“A church of England that looks like England.”
Really?
How so? Secular, atheist, multi faith?
Not anti LGBT and women in leadership roles, with the King as its head still and with a Parish presence in all parts of England
T1,
Very selective of you. So narrow. Such a parody of the Gospel, that you have been unable or unwilling to articulate. Hardly a Christian church at all according to your own construction: Christless, I which God ha no part.
Apostolic succession, my eye. Certainly no succession to the NT apostles, beliefs and teaching. Which apostles? Barrelling from parody to parroting.
‘He is the closest of the candidates to their wing.’
You are writing as though there was a list of ‘the candidates’. Two problems there:
-There isn’t.
-The list you have in mind must be an extremely short one for M Snow to be the most evangelical on it.
-That is exactly what the press would like you to believe, which is also why the press (Tablet) omits Robert Sarah from its list of pope candidates, and helps install Tagle and Parolin as the favourites when such things are almost impossible to calculate.
-If there were indeed no-one more evangelical than M Snow on the list of candidates (which list does not exist, and is a fiction) then that would be very unrepresentative and therefore wrong. But that statistical level of very disproportionate non-representation is something that conservative evangelicals are used to.
-As for the nonsensical talk of wings, as though positions on millions of different topics were somehow a unified package-deal, NT Wright rightly said that birds need bodies as well as wings.
T1/Simon
“As for the established church that is not changing, no main party leader is pushing disestablishment. Yet they do want a Church of England that looks like the England it is church of….”
I think you will find that if the CofE positively decides against same-sex marriage, all the main party leaders will be pushing very strongly for disestablishment.
“Looking like England” is NOT the definition of the Church – on the contrary it would amount to ‘letting the world squeeze us into its on mould”, as JB Phillips paraphrased Romans 12 v2. A betrayal of God and frankly pretty much a worshipping of England. And of course such a ‘church’ will not have the support of God, Jesus, or the Apostles, and therefore would really really lose the point of its existence …..
The C of E has already approved PLF and not one major party leader has proposed disestablishment as a result. Had conservative evangelicals managed to stop PLF then the Labour and Green Parties certainly and maybe even the LDs too would have perhaps pushed for disestablishment. However conservative evangelicals were defeated in Synod and a majority of Synod voted for PLF in all 3 houses, even if not full same sex marriage as uber liberals wanted. Hence when Labour moved forward with its proposals for House of Lords reform the bill keeps the C of E Bishops in the Lords and only removes the hereditary peers.
The Church of England very much should look like England as its national church represented in parishes across the nation. That is why hardline Baptists like you have no place in it
T1/Simon
Think this through. In accepting PLF the CofE is going the way the world – the enemies of God – want it to go. So long as the CofE continues on that route the world – the political leaders – will encourage that move and if expressing any dissatisfaction, it will be by pushing the CofE to go faster. But if the CofE goes backwards, yes it is then likely to be threatened with the loss of the (dubious) benefits of establishment.
PLF is maybe not quite totally over the line into serious disobedience to God – but it is hard to see how any further move in that direction could not cross the line….
As the Bible does not teach establishment of any church, but rather the reverse, it of course doesn’t teach that the bishops should have a place in the Lords.
The basic obligation of any Church of Christ is to be what God’s Word says it should be. There is not and cannot be the slightest obligation to ‘look like England’ especially when looking like England will involve disobeying God. ‘Looking like England’ in a way that disobeys God – for example by accepting same-sex marriage – will quite simply be treason to God…..
No, it is rejecting evangelical hardliners like you who want to turn the C of E into a Baptist church in all but name. There is nothing in the Bible against Bishops in the Lords and as a church created to be established church and national church of England it is of course right the C of E bishops have a presence there and PLF was passed
T1/Simon
1) As I’ve pointed out a few times, ‘bishops’ in the Bible are not the modern monarchical regional CEOs but simply an a;ternative title for ‘elders’.
2) The NT evidence for ‘establishment’ and similar church/state entanglements is effectively non-existent. And this is because the ‘new covenant’ promised in the OT really does change things. The NT does not depict a continuation of Israel-like nations as the form of Jesus’ ‘ekklesia’, but instead a situation in which the international Church is God’s holy nation on earth, and calls people out of the ‘world’ into a different kind of body, a body based on being born again by faith rather than the being merely physically born in a supposed ‘Christian’ state. So in the new covenant, no established/national churches, and so no place for secular governments like that of Henry VIII and his successors. God is the King of His Church, human monarchs can only be usurpers. England and its monarch have no place of authority in God’s church just because of their secular power, and it is simple arrogance if they claim such a place.
3) The CofE is at a crossroads; ideally it should take seriously its belief in the Bible as ultimate authority, and therefore on the one hand finally seek disestablishment, and on the other hand follow the biblical teaching on sexuality. Or it can continue, against the Bible, established and further defying God by going its own way on the sexuality issues as well. A continuing church following that road will basically be telling the God of Christianity to “Go jump – we know better!” – and ipso facto will forfeit God’s support. It may end up taking the resources of the current CofE – it will still decline….
Bishops in the C of E descend by apostolic succession from St Peter.
Of course as a Baptist nonconformist you will read into the Bible no place for established churches in accordance with your ideological worldview.
As your final paragraph states you have zero interest in Anglicanism, you just want to turn it into a Baptist church in all but name. For the same reason we genuine committed members of the Church of England will continue to completely ignore and dismiss your agenda!
The C of E also has £8 billion of assets and investments to keep it going
T1/Simon
1) You say “Bishops in the C of E descend by apostolic succession from St Peter.” So do bishops in the RC church and indeed in Orthodoxy with rather more credibility. Neither are bishops/episkopoi in the NT sense. And you still haven’t produced a satisfactory answer of what apostolic succession actually does or achieves, especially given the contradictions between the various bishops in the succession.
I actually started out as an Anglican. It was reading the Bible that made me realise the faults of Anglicanism, because the Anglican scheme is basically not in the Bible. Bluntly my worldview on this was very much read out of the Bible rather than into it. It is the Anglican view that is imposed on a Bible that doesn’t actually contain it.
It would be nice if the Anglican church could in my lifetime complete the Reformation it started under Edward VI and Elizabeth, by bringing itself even closer to the biblical teaching it aspired to according to the Articles and the BCP.
£8bn of assets won’t help a church with liberal – and therefore unChristian and of course unapostolic doctrines…..
The C of E though is a Catholic but reformed church, having bishops of apostolic succession though ensures the C of E is not a purely evangelical church. Your emphasis on what you see as biblical purity and low church worship led you correctly to the Baptist church. Those on the Catholic wing of the C of E like me will of course never accept a purely low church, evangelical Baptist in all but name C of E you want (and don’t forget the BCP and articles also make clear the position of the UK Monarch as supreme governor and the place of bishops of apostolic succession).
T1/Simon
“The C of E though is a Catholic but reformed church, having bishops of apostolic succession though ensures the C of E is not a purely evangelical church”.
But you have simply skipped round my point that “….you still haven’t produced a satisfactory answer of what apostolic succession actually does or achieves, especially given the contradictions between the various bishops in the succession”. For all the prominence you give it, it appears in practice to be a useless point….
“Your emphasis on what you see as biblical purity and low church worship led you correctly to the Baptist church”.
The emphasis on ‘low church worship’ actually arises out of the biblical purity, of course. Though I have worshipped in Anglican churches and benefitted from it; but the point of course is that the essential is ‘worship in spirit and truth’ rather than beautiful ritual. I’m quite a fan of CS Lewis who could be surprisingly ‘high’.
“and don’t forget the BCP and articles also make clear the position of the UK Monarch as supreme governor and the place of bishops of apostolic succession”.
I’m well aware that the BCP and Articles are inconsistent and contradictory in the sense that they assert both the primacy of the Bible and unbiblical doctrines about the place of the King, ideas which distort what the Bible says about church and state and the church’s relationships to secular rulers. I don’t see it as a good thing to be proud of such inconsistency and contradiction. God in the Bible does not contradict Himself about that – how do you in effect justify contradicting God?
And while I’m not sure of every possible passage of the BCP, the Articles seem to be rather short of statements about apostolic succession – please point me to them if they are there ….. And if it’s not in the Articles, is it so very important…?
Well having bishops of apostolic succession ensures the Church of England is not a purely evangelical nonconformist low church church like you want for starters while keeping the symbolic succession from St Peter as first Pope. The Bishops place in the Articles is clear eg Article XXXVI ‘The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly.’
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion#XXXVI
His Majesty’s Declaration ‘That out of Our Princely Care that the Churchmen may do the Work which is proper unto them, the Bishops and Clergy, from time to time in Convocation, upon their humble Desire, shall have Licence under Our Broad Seal to deliberate of, and to do all such Things, as, being made plain by them, and assented unto by Us, shall concern the settled Continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now established; from which We will not endure any varying or departing in the least Degree.’
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion#XXXVI
The primacy of the Bible isn’t of course distinctive to the Church of England anymore than any other denomination. The King as Supreme Governor of the C of E in accordance with the BCP and Articles is what makes the Church of England unique
Apostolic succession ensures respect for the Catholic element of the Catholic but Reform church.
Plenty in the Articles about the place of Bishops too in the C of E as well as the King as Supreme Governor
T1/Simon
“Apostolic succession ensures respect for the Catholic element of the Catholic but Reform church.
Plenty in the Articles about the place of Bishops too in the C of E as well as the King as Supreme Governor”
As applied to the Church ‘Catholic’ means ‘universal’, ie for everybody. After Constantine the word acquired a more dubious ‘spin’ which might better be translated ‘totalitarian’, coercive conformity enforced by the state just like secular fascism or communism. The post-Constantine interpretation is of course totally inconsistent with a religion based on the free exercise of faith. The word can also be used to describe the distorted and unbiblical views which grew up in the (unbiblical, unapostolic) Imperial state church and its successors, and which eventually required the Reformation. The CofE, precisely because of its links to the state, represents only a partial Reform, remaining exactly the kind of “kingdom of/from this world” that Jesus rejected.
Have just read through the Articles – they say little about bishops and don’t seem to mention that apostolic succession thing.
I have realised that I’m going to have to write up a serious examination of the Articles. But I still note that I probably agree with more in there than the typical liberal Anglican….
Yes I know you reject Catholicism and any presence for it in the C of E but we Catholic Anglicans absolutely don’t, we believe in the importance of communion and the descent of the church from St Peter as first Pope.
As even you have just admitted bishops are mentioned in the Articles along with the English monarch.
T1/Simon
I believe in the ‘universal’ Church which is the proper meaning of ‘catholic’; I reject the totalitarian coercive body that the Roman Imperial church and its successors became. It worries me that you apparently don’t realise how unChristian that totalitarian approach was, especially under a despot like Henry VIII.
Baptists also believe in the importance of communion – but without some later superstitious accretions. As for Peter, Baptists and Anabaptists find the epistle I Peter to be a pretty good exposition of many of our key beliefs, and a favourite portion of scripture. We do wish that the assorted ‘Catholics’ would follow Peter’s teaching rather than glorifying him but ignoring the teachings.
“….bishops are mentioned in the Articles…” Yes, but that mention falls quite a bit short of a full doctrine of apostolic succession, which anyway does not seem able to secure that modern bishops follow apostolic doctrine. While the mentions of the king are definitely a departure from biblical doctrine, though one can see why that wasn’t realised back in Tudor times.
Yes, you are a low church evangelical Baptist nonconformist not an Anglican and have no interest in the Catholic wing of the C of E I know.
Baptists see communion as a merely symbolic act, whereas Anglicans believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine. Anglicans always have the priest leading communion whereas Baptists sometimes even have members of the congregation administering communion to each other.
Baptists of course don’t even have Bishops at all, let alone Bishops of apostolic succession like the C of E. Of course Baptists do not have the King as their Supreme Governor either
T1/Simon
1) Your first para – theology I reply to, snobbery I ignore….
2) As regards communion most Baptists and Anabaptists I know would be quite happy with the Prayer Book when it says
” THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving”.
3) We always have a priest conducting communion – have you not heard of the priesthood of all believers, as taught by the first Pope Peter in his first epistle “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light”.
4) We do have bishops – just we have bishops as taught in scripture, where the word is another title for presbyteroi/elders – we don’t need unbiblical (and therefore unapostolic) bishops of another and later-devised kind.
5) And why do we need the king of England as ‘Supreme Governor’ – we have the King of the Universe, Messiah Jesus, as our really Supreme Governor, not a cheapskate usurper like Henry VIII …..
Yes so you feed on Christ as he is present when you take the Eucharist.
Baptists don’t have Bishops, your ministers have no mitres, no croziers and there is no senior leadership of Baptists who are bishops and Archbishops like the C of E and RC church. You also certainly don’t have bishops of apostolic succession descended from St Peter.
The King is Supreme Governor of the Church of England as it is England’s national church. Baptists can be in any nation, they are not distinctly English
T1/Simon
One of the troubles dealing with you is that you keep just asserting things that need to be actually proved – as per Article 6 which says clearly
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation”.
Where is the biblical proof that mitres and croziers are necessary, indeed that they are not just human inventions for the self-glorification of the bishops?
Baptists have the only kind of bishop known to scripture. Your kind of bishop by article 6 are not to be “thought requisite or necessary to salvation”. And I’d have to repeat – which matters more,
– to be on the end of a chain of laid-on-hands from an apostle but defy actual biblical/apostolic teaching; or
– to not be in such a chain but to faithfully follow biblical/apostolic teaching – on church/state relations as Peter teaches in his first epistle, or on sexuality as Paul makes clear?
Doing the will of God as expressed in his Word is more important than a supposed succession which does not lead to following God’s will….
As for
“The King is Supreme Governor of the Church of England as it is England’s national church. Baptists can be in any nation, they are not distinctly English.”
You need to prove that the Bible teaches ‘national churches’ – and in all kinds of ways it doesn’t, as for example in Peter’s words I recently quoted that the Church itself is “God’s holy nation”, or indeed in Jesus’ words that his kingdom is not of/from this world.
And who interprets what ‘Holy Scripture’ means for the Church of England? Synod. Mitres and croziers are necessary as symbols of bishops of apostolic succession, bishops who are key symbol of distinction of the C of E from the Baptist church.
Bishops of apostolic succession of course matters more for the C of E, otherwise it could just be any old evangelical denomination, even Baptist. Any old Christian denomination can place emphasis on the bible and its particular interpretation of it and God’s word first. Only Bishops of apostolic succession plus the BCP plus the King as its supreme governor and believing Christ is present in the Eucharist but transubstantiation makes the Church of England unique.
…and believing Christ is present in the Eucharist but not in transubstantiation makes the Church of England unique.
“And who interprets what ‘Holy Scripture’ means for the Church of England? Synod. Mitres and croziers are necessary as symbols of bishops of apostolic succession, bishops who are key symbol of distinction of the C of E from the Baptist church.
Bishops of apostolic succession of course matters more for the C of E, otherwise it could just be any old evangelical denomination, even Baptist. Any old Christian denomination can place emphasis on the bible and its particular interpretation of it and God’s word first. Only Bishops of apostolic succession plus the BCP plus the King as its supreme governor and believing Christ is present in the Eucharist but not in transubstantiation makes the Church of England unique”.
“And who interprets….” That’s kind of the nub of it. Do any humans have some kind of magical guarantee that their interpretation is infallible? Because that seems to me to be what you want here. But I actually see it as God has given us a ‘word’ precisely because he wants us to read it for ourselves and work it out; sure we should not be so arrogant as to think our individual answer must be right just like that, sure we should consider the views of other Christians and not lightly go against them, but as the Articles point out, even Councils of the Church have been known to err, if you do honest scholarship you – even T1 – may come up with a valid answer.
Quite important here – at times we may need to expound to non-Christian outsiders who won’t rate even Popes as having special authority, we need to convince them of the Bible itself. My approach is definitely “I’m not infallible – but you can check it out for yourself to see that I’m not just making up an interpretation to suit myself”.
“Mitres and croziers are necessary as symbols of bishops of apostolic succession, bishops who are key symbol of distinction of the C of E from the Baptist church”.
Mitres are apparently only known as late as the 8th century – looks like they were not essential for centuries, and I can imagine early bishops/elders being if anything horrified by dress that implied more lording it over others than being a servant as Jesus taught. Croziers are known from the 4th C but only common after the 7th C. A humble shepherd’s crook as a symbol I’ll give you – but ornate ones seem again to be glorifying the bishop in a dubious way.
And you still haven’t properly explained what ‘apostolic succession’ actually achieves – it certainly doesn’t seem to guarantee doctrinal reliability ….
“Bishops of apostolic succession of course matters more for the C of E, otherwise it could just be any old evangelical denomination, even Baptist. Any old Christian denomination can place emphasis on the bible and its particular interpretation of it and God’s word first.”
What’s wrong with being ‘ just any old evangelical denomination, even Baptist’, so long as we’re faithful to God’s Word? Faithfulness to God’s word via ordinary interpretation trumps anybody who claims a special interpretation just because of a chain of laying on of hands….
“Only Bishops of apostolic succession plus the BCP plus the King as its supreme governor and believing Christ is present in the Eucharist but not in transubstantiation makes the Church of England unique”.
Has it not occurred to you that ‘uniqueness’ may not be a great value to have as a church? And anyway – I’ve already pointed out that ‘apostolic succession’ seems a rather empty claim; the BCP certainly has very good stuff in it but in the end is mainly valuable where it is biblically faithful, which it isn’t always. The King as Supreme Governor depends on a deciding twisting of biblical teaching about the church’s relations to states and rulers. And a non-transsubtantiative presence of Jesus in the communion is not all that unique…
Er… do you think Jesus had any interest in ‘wings’ of the Church of England or king as supreme governor?
Christopher Shell
In the context of a trial before Pilate as a possible rebel (or ‘military messiah’) Jesus statement that his kingdom is ‘not of/from this world’ amounts to a rejection of the idea of Christian states, and much of the rest of the NT confirms that position in various ways.
I think Jesus’ main concern about the CofE would be “Please will you stop trying to give me that ‘kingdom of this world’ that I rejected, and work instead towards the kind of kingdom that I and my apostles do teach in the NT”. Of course He doesn’t want a secular ruler as governor of part of the Church, and the ‘wing’ of the Church of England that he will be interested in will be the wing that obeys the word of God…..
The case for disestablishment will be affected by how the CofE splits, it it does. If the “continuing” part of the church is anti-gay and anti-women, then the stark difference between the secular legal and official theological stances on these two issues will cause some difficulties for politicians, and disestablishment will look more attractive than defending the status quo. It will also be affected by the size of the “continuing” part, and how the parish structure is affected. In any case, even the hint of schism may cause politicians and secularists to re-assess the reasons for and justifications of establishment.
So if the balance of the Crown Nomination Committee is affected by the result of a dodgy election, the knock on effects could be significant. “All for the want of a horseshoe nail…”
The continuing part of the church is clearly not anti gay and anti women though is it. For Synod has already voted by 2/3 majority for women priests and women bishops and by majority in all 3 houses for PLF.
Indeed the most anti women former members of the C of E largely left for the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches a decade or 2 ago. While the most anti gay evangelicals in the C of E may well go Baptist, Pentecostal or independent. So there is no real prospect of disestablishment, indeed the election of a favourite Bishop Guli as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury would confirm the C of E is now ready for 21st century England and will also see a tougher line on safeguarding as the government wants
Who polled all the members of the CNC to find out who their favourite candidate is?
The pressures on the CofE aren’t just internal – there are domestic political considerations and the views and needs of the wider Communion too. The more liberal the next ABC, the less legitimacy they will have in some of the largest Provinces of the Anglican Communion, and the greater the agitation for realignment from conservative evangelicals within the CofE, many of whom have common cause with conservative Provinces (GAFCOM etc).
The next ABC has to convince the CofE that doctrine hasn’t been changed over PLF and any further moves to equal marriage within the church, or they will need to change the doctrine of the CofE, or they will have to reverse the LLF process to a greater or lesser extent.
If they are a very effective political operator (and that sort of ability has been conspicuous by its absence from the HoB in recent years), they may be able to hold things together for the length of their term (but patience is wearing thin on all sides) or they may be able to find a formula where nearly everyone thinks they have enough of what they want that an uneasy peace will descend for a while.
The stature of recent ABCs (with the stand out exception of Rowan Williams) doesn’t give me much hope that this sort of candidate will emerge. And even if they do, it’s a very big ask and there’s no guarantee the circle can be squared.
Even the leading evangelical candidate, Snow, still backed PLF like Guli who is lead candidate from the Catholic wing now after Usher withdrew.
There are some Anglican Communion representatives on the CNC committee but they are only a minority and the Anglican Communion is not that relevant anymore. The Anglican Communion is not one global denomination under the top down leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury like the Roman Catholic church is under the Pope. Indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury is only a symbolic first amongst equals, he has no power outside England. So who cares what legitimacy the next Archbishop has with them really? Indeed it has been proposed that leadership of the Anglican Communion will rotate amongst each province’s Archbishop as Prince William has said he wants to rotate Commonwealth leadership amongst Commonwealth heads of state rather than only leave it to the UK monarch. If hardline conservative evangelicals wish to leave the CofE equally fine, there is the door. If you feel more comfortable in Gafcon or a Pentecostal or Baptist church than the established English church after PLF (despite the opt out for evangelical churches in the C of E that disagree) so be it.
I’m obviously overthinking this! I’d still like to see the canvas of the CNC members you keep quoting.