Who are the bishops in the Church of England?

36 thoughts on “Who are the bishops in the Church of England?”

1. A fascinating and illuminating analysis! Thank you, Andrew. On first reading, the issue that strikes me most – and concerns me greatly! – is the lack of parish experience amongst bishops either immediately before their consecration or even at all! This points to Justin Welby’s tendency to “fish in professional and academic pools” rather than those of candidates whose recent concerns have been more for their clergy and congregations. I cite Paula Vennels, who was an apparent suggestion of Justin Welby for Bishop of London, as an example. Is this tendency a factor in the current perceived “disconnect” between the bishops and those in the pews? “Watch this space” is an understatement when applied to the current AC machinations!

   Reply

   • I have a friend who is a retired priest, a late vocation of the liberal Catholic strand, who served all his active ministry in one diocese and identified one of his diocesan bishops as “the only bishop I had who’d never been a vicar – and it showed.”

     Reply

   • I wonder if Andrew’s article will now inform those who are thinking of taking bets with Paddy Power on the next ABC..

     Reply

     • It certainly opens up a number of candidates whom the media are only considering as “rank outsiders”, if at all!

       Reply

2. Thanks, Andrew, for this very detailed analysis of our current bishops. Two points in response:
   1. I think the most important point is your statement right at the start that, ‘In one sense it is right to say that there are not different types of bishop as all bishops are consecrated to the same order of ministry.’ Absolutely. There is one form of consecration of bishops for all, just as there is one ordinal and so all priests and deacons are ordained to the same ministry. There is no such thing as a ‘liberal catholic,’ ‘evangelical’, ‘conservative’ bishop, only a bishop in the Church of God, whatever their personal theological preferences. It’s important for them to be able to put those preferences to one side as they serve the whole church.

   And whilst Andrew is correct to add that ‘there are various distinctions which it is important to clarify as there can be considerable confusion’ I hope that those entrusted with the task of selecting the Archbishop of Canterbury are able to rise above these tribal labels and that we don’t allow party identification/prejudices to take centre stage. I have served with excellent bishops of a variety of theological traditions, and see no need for that to loom large in the choice of the new ABC. What I hope for is a person of deep and humble faith, wisdom, prayerfulness and warm humanity, who understands what the office of ABC is and isn’t about, whatever their theological tradition. (Other virtues are available.)

   2. What is also striking is that 21 of the current diocesan bishops (and 60 of all bishops) attended an evangelical theological college and whilst that is no guarantee of their current views, and those colleges have significantly different emphases, it’s not a bad indicator. Yet even with the most evangelical group of bishops I can ever remember evangelicals often appear to be displeased with the work of the the House of Bishops in recent years. Is it that the ‘evangelical’ bishops aren’t behaving in a sufficiently evangelical way or what?

   Reply

3. Anglicans are fond of repeating the phrase ‘a bishop in the Church of God’, but what does this mean? Is it a sop to the old ‘root and branch’ theory beloved on Anglo-Catholics?
   Anglican orders aren’t recognised by Roman Catholics and Orthodox, so an Anglican bishop like Michael Nazir-Ali who swims the Tiber has to be ordained first to serve in that church – whereas a RC priest who defects to the Church of England doesn’t have to be (re-)ordained. On the other hand, a Methodist or URC or Baptist minister who wants to become an Anglican priest has to be re-ordained. The theory is a mess.
   Tim Evans also asks: “even with the most evangelical group of bishops I can ever remember evangelicals often appear to be displeased with the work of the the House of Bishops in recent years. Is it that the ‘evangelical’ bishops aren’t behaving in a sufficiently evangelical way or what?”
   The answer is quite simple. First, even though there are numerous large (some very large) conservative evangelical parishes which are not ‘on board’ with women’s ordination, no conservative evangelical man has been made a diocesan bishop in years. They have systematically been excluded. Some large churches like Co-Mission’s Dundonald in Southwark have now left the C of E and joined the AMiE. The same thing happened to St John Newlands in Hull and Christ Church Durham.
   Second, the ‘evangelical bishops’ include a large number of ‘liberal evangelicals’ who are all in support of same-sex marriage, even though this is opposed to the clear message of Scripture. You can’t assume a person is evangelical just because she went to Trinity College. There is no trust between the evangelical parishes and the Bishop in London.

   Reply

   • James – my problem here is that I no longer know what an ‘evangelical’ is. I had always assumed that the label applied to a person who understands that *he* is a sinner; *he* personally has sinned and, for this reason, has fallen short of the glory of God (not something attributed to him by sole virtue of having inherited something from Adam) and sees, in the cross, the wages that were due to *him* for *his own sin*. That is, the cross is not something in which we see the suffering of humanity in some generalised sense (and bypass our own responsibility for it).

     As I have indicated on here many times, I got a real shock back in 2000 / 2001 when I saw a group, which was very serious about Scripture and about reading it well, who emphasised Community and Love-of-Jesus – and completely bypassed all this about *our own personal sin*. They had grounded this in (hopefully) a (mis-)reading of N.T. Wright’s ‘New Perspective on Romans’.

     So ‘evangelical’ now seems to whole-heartedly include those who bypass sin, the need of a redeemer, they use ‘community’ without reference to ‘community of forgiven sinners’ and sing about ‘love of Jesus’ without reference to how he showed his love (dying on the cross) and why this was necessary for each of us.

     Without this, we do not have peace with God, we have a false peace. Without this, we have the
     sanctimonious converts described in Matthew 23:15: ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.’

     I’m thinking of the gay marriage issue here – of course, if the Church is going to do marriage, then it has to stick to the rules laid out in Scripture (hence gay marriage has to be firmly excluded), but while the ‘conservative evangelicals’ do firmly exclude it (and ten out of ten for that), I don’t really see the understanding ‘all have sinned’ (so even if I don’t sin in that way, nevertheless, being in Him, I belong to the club of ‘forgiven sinners’, emphasis on both words).

     Reply

     • NT Wright is almost always misread, and for one main reason: he openly disagrees with people who can see less of the big picture than he can. Which is, of course, almost everybody. This is the fate of people of intelligence, and the main way to solve it is for others to listen more carefully to what they have to say. And, as he says, he probably affirms what they affirm, just thinks they should also have included what they do not include.

       Reply

     • Interesting thoughts Jock. I’m not sure evangelicals (at least Anglican ones) would be comfortable with what sounds like a rejection of original sin. A legalist view of sin – here are a set of rules and you broke them – I worry opens to the door to Pelagianism. If God is just and sin is simply rule-breaking, then His rules would be rules we could keep. But the only sinless man is the one who was God. That’s not a coincidence. So I think you’re missing something if you don’t have an analogy of sin as sickness or wound from which we need to be healed.

       But that does leave us with the question of what is distinct about evangelicals. Catholics have a strong view of sin, and are very conscious of the cross, so that probably isn’t the definition. When I’ve thought about it previously, what I think does set evangelicals apart is attaching a particular emphasis to the importance of the conversion experience, as an emotional and personal encounter with God, and salvation therefore that is expressed in the past tense (“I have been saved”). This contrasts with the historic Protestants who would put more emphasis on adopting a correct theology and prayer, Catholics who place an emphasis on encounter with God in the sacrament, and Orthodox who view salvation as an ongoing and future life with God.

       Reply

       • AJ Bell – well, Jesus came in the flesh – that is, sinful flesh, just like ours – and yet he did not sin. So although I don’t really understand what ‘original sin’ means, I’d point out that Jesus came in sinful flesh – and yet did not sin – so this is no excuse.

         But there is something very important here – yes – sin *is* a sickness, which pervades the whole of nature – and we can see this right at the creation ordinances of Genesis 2. God ordains a Sabbath rest – but nature clearly does not keep this Sabbath rest – nature keeps pressing on regardless.

         I don’t really see where ‘Pelagianism’ comes into it – all have sinned and, furthermore, all continue to sin. This is the import of Ezekiel 18 – if you are a sinner and you really *do* stop sinning, then you have done everything God wants of you – and then you don’t need a redeemer to get to heaven.

         It is understanding that all have sinned (including me), all keep sinning (including me) that gives us the humility and perspective to deal with others that God puts in our paths.

         Reply

   • Wallace Benn’s time as Bishop of Lewes was not entirely happy even for him or for the Diocese of Chichester.

     Reply

4. We really make our lives so unnecessarily complicated. I’ve never understood why the House of Bishops simply isn’t all the sitting Bishops. And why pretend that Canterbury isn’t the top Archbishop, but merely a counterpart to York. And why we have more diocesans in England than Lords Spiritual.

   Wouldn’t life be more straightforward if we just said all the Bishops are the House of Bishops?

   And why not be clear that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the top bishop? Then create an Archbishop of Winchester to oversee the southern Province. Then reduce the diocesans down to 23, so under York you’d have: Durham with Carlisle & Newcastle, Liverpool & Chester, Lincoln & Nottingham, Sheffield, Lichfield, Coventry & Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester & Blackburn, Ripon, Hereford with Gloucester & Worcester, and Derby & Leicester. And under Winchester you’d have: London, Salisbury & Portsmouth, Rochester, Southwark, Chelmsford, Oxford, St Albans, Chichester & Guildford, Exeter & Truro, Bristol & Wells, Norwich & St Edmundsbury, and Ely & Peterborough.

   Reply

   • Not sure about this, but I think at one point there were 26 dioceses, before the C19/early C20 creation of many new dioceses. Parliament was happy to create the new dioceses, but not expand the bishops’ bench in the Lords? So a system of seniority had to be created?

     Reply

     • Almost certainly that’s how it came about, but I think it’s hard to justify having more diocesans than Lords Spiritual today (and no case for expanding the number of Lords Spiritual).

       Reply

   • Good questions. And there are good answers.

     The House of Bishops is a house of Synod. If we had all bishops, but that logic we ought to have all clergy. If not, then power would be weighted too much to the bishops.

     Theologically, the archbishops are ‘first amongst equals’ in the House, and bishops are ‘first amongst equals’ within the clergy. In practice they are not. I would rather than practice was realigned with the theology, and not the other way around.

     I entirely agree with you that we have too many bishops; we do not need that many posts. But try getting any of them to give up their power and influence…!

     Reply

     • I don’t think it follows that if all the Bishops are there we must have all the clergy. Don’t Bishops have a particular role in the government of the Church? Bishops being priests who are ex-officio on Synod would seem to make more sense of the ‘first among equals’ idea than having separate elections. I’m intrigued as to how you’d align practice with theology though.

       If the plan to reduce the number of Bishops involves effectively sacking sitting Bishops then it will always falter. If you do it, it’ll be because you merge dioceses as the vacancies arise (hence my suggestion is a lot of mergers rather than redrawing diocesan boundaries in any new way). In the meantime those who adore the managerial approach to episcopacy can while away the days efficiently “combining the back office functions”.

       Reply

5. We could at least trim the suffragans.

   Reply

6. Given the significant fall in clergy numbers, we certainly don’t need that number of bishops; it’s like the Royal Navy, with its excessive number of admirals while the number of vessels and service personnel are way down.
   I think the Presbyterian moderator model is better: successful parish ministers are seconded from their parishes for a while to exercise seniority, then they return to their parishes.
   The Anglican system means you can get stuck with a duffer for 15 years.
   The suffragan system also means a bishop’s favourite can be pre-selected, circumventing the wishes of local people; and suffragans get preferred for diocesan posts.
   That is how the Bishop of Dover was imposed upon the people of Canterbury diocese, where she has alienated great numbers of orthodox Anglicanism with her intolerant liberalism and advocacy of same-sex relationships. She was selected by Welby and is widely seen as a DEI appointment. She has tried to drive evangelicals out of the Cathedral chapter.
   I am told by folk down there that she has tried four times to get a diocesan post and has been rejected each time. Clearly they know something.

   Reply

   • Yes we don’t need the number of Bishops we have, certainly the number of suffragen bishops could be halved and diocesan bishops cut by a third. However as a church of apostolic succession not a congregationalist Calvinist church like Presbyterians and the Church of Scotland, bishops will still very much be there

     Reply

     • T1/Simon
       We really of course don’t need any of the kind of ‘bishops’ the CofE currently has. But we need many, many more of the kind of bishops the NT teaches, where ‘episkopos/overseer’ is clearly another designation of ‘presbyter/elder’, of whom there would be more than one per local church. Indeed given that ‘presbyter’ is the original form of the word priest, we need many more of them too, the mature people who run the pastoral and teaching side of the church, while the more administrative side should be in the hands of deacons who should not be minor clergy but church servants in practical affairs.

       Also, I’m still waiting for an explanation of exactly what ‘apostolic succession’ supposedly achieves – it clearly doesn’t ensure doctrinal reliability or certainty. Indeed every institution claiming apostolic succession has its roots in the Roman Imperial church after the unbiblical entanglement between church and state, and so are clearly heretical by biblical standards …..

       Reply

       • Yes, hence correctly you are in a low church Baptist church and not in the Church of England. Though I agree we could do with more community minded priests in Parishes as well as our bishops of apostolic succession

         Reply

         • T1/Simon
           All very well to keep repeating “our bishops of apostolic succession” – but what does that succession actually mean in practice? As shown by RC, Orthodox, Anglicans and others totally defying the teaching of Jesus and the actual apostles, via the NT, on how church and state should be related, apostolic succession clearly does not secure apostolic doctrine – so what actual use is it? Please stop just repeating the phrase and clarify what real use it is – IF ANY!!

           Biblical presbyters/priests/bishops do tend to be community minded because they are in effect produced by the community rather than abstractly imposed from outside. Priests/Bishops not according to the Bible should not be wanted of course….

         • Apostolic succession defines churches with Bishops with descent from St Peter, anointed by Jesus as first Pope.

           Rejection of that principle, as shown by your comments as a diehard low church Baptist, of course means you cannot have any place in the Church of England

         • Simon, nope, ‘apostolic succession’ is about the passing on of the gospel message. It is not about simply having a line of people.

         • T1/Simon
           “Apostolic succession defines churches with Bishops with descent from St Peter, anointed by Jesus as first Pope”.

           And the actual use of that descent is … ?????? Given that it is clearly possible to be within that supposed line of succession yet way out of line with actual apostolic doctrine, while lots of those you despise as ‘low church’ do faithfully follow scriptural/apostolic doctrine??

         • Eh? Apostolic succession is not only the direct line of continuity from the first apostoles. It is also the belief that Jesus designated St Peter to be his representative on earth and to lead the church and have the keys to the kingdom of heaven and his ministry being passed on to Peter’s successors as Pope. The Church of England inherited that apostolic succession for its bishops at the Reformation when it replaced the Roman Catholic church as the English national church

         • ‘It is also the belief that Jesus designated St Peter to be his representative on earth’. That is not supported by the ‘sure warrant of scripture’. It is therefore not the doctrine of the Church of England.

           Again, you keep appealing to things which are not Anglican. It is odd.

         • Simon, you might be helped by reading this: https://grovebooks.co.uk/product/x-36-is-papal-authority-a-gift-to-us-a-critique-of-the-gift-of-authority-2003/

         • Papal authority has nothing to do with apostolic succession, the descent of C of E bishops from St Peter does not prevent the King remaining head of the C of E not the Pope

         • T1/Simon
           You still aren’t explaining what actual practical use this apostolic succession stuff is. It is clear that bishops all in the succession can nevertheless disagree radically on doctrine, while a claim that apostolic succession from Peter somehow remains valid in a CofE that has split from Rome seems a really incoherent idea. On the one hand you seem to claim it is an absolutely essential piece of ‘magic’; on the other hand it doesn’t actually seem to do anything practical, while people supposedly outside the succession can be totally apostolic simply by ordinary commonsense biblical interpretation …..

       • Yes it most certainly is a doctrine of the Church of England.
         ‘There is a succession of faithfulness, witness and life, of which the bishop is the sign – a succession called apostolic; ‘Ordination denotes entry into this apostolic and God-given ministry’.
         https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/recognition_of_orders.pdf

         Reply

         • That quotation has no connection with your previous claim!!

         • Of course it does, you just don’t recognise its validity

         • T1/Simon –
           “There is a succession of faithfulness, witness and life, of which the bishop is the sign – a succession called apostolic….”

           ….until a bishop is unfaithful to apostolic teaching by disregarding the teaching of the (very apostolic) NT on a topic like gay sex…..

         • No one’s disregarding the teaching of the New Testament…

7. Interesting, of course the Bishop of London serves as Dean of the Chapels Royal too. Could certainly do with a few more Bishops with Parish experience before they were appointed (albeit some will have held Parish posts before their pre episcopal role such as Dean or Archdeacon).

   Flying bishops may also expand their authority over some more conservative Parishes if they find themselves under a diocesan bishop in a same sex relationship in the future, even if such Parishes now accept female bishops and don’t require a flying bishop at present unlike those opposed to ordination of women

   Reply