The process by which the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be appointed has been criticised at points as being ‘confusing’ and ‘lacking in transparency’, proper process and clarity, according to one academic.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard, a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), has raised major questions and real concerns about the process by which the new archbishop will be appointed. It follows the House of Bishops’ failed attempt to secure General Synod’s approval of its proposed changes to the decision-making process of the Crown Nominations Commission (a group of church leaders and lay people who recommend candidates for vacant diocesan Sees in the Church of England,).
The Archbishop of Canterbury (like other diocesan bishops) is appointed by The King following a discernment process led by the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC). The CNC receives nominations and considers various potential candidates. The CNC selects a short list of potential candidates who are then interviewed. The Commission discerns who God might be calling to this role and nominates them to the King via the Prime Minister.
Throughout this process, there are a number of consultations with various bodies within the church, and input is sought from clergy and laypeople, both inside and outside the diocese, ensuring that the final choice reflects the needs of the church and its communities. A Vacancy in See Committee (ViSC) in each diocese elects members for the Crown Nominations Commission and provides a ‘profile’ of the diocese and its needs for the Commission.
In Canterbury diocese, Goddard suggests that due process is not being followed, citing the failure and lack of attention paid to replace members of the existing 2022-2024 Vacancy in See Committee (ViSC) within the agreed timeframe, resulting in a large number of vacancies. This was seen by Goddard as a particular failing given the imminent retirement of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
A second ViSC was formed for 2025-27 in December, following the resignation of Justin Welby. Yet neither this nor the previous ViSC are being used and instead the formation of a third Committee has been instigated, overlapping with the introduction of new regulations around ViSC elections at the General Synod in February. Using the new Regulation would raise yet a further set of questions about the Canterbury process. This has been seen to have been done in a shroud of mystery and it is unclear whether the latest ViSC complies with the new regulations.
Goddard states: “There appears to have been, and still remains, some considerable confusion and serious questions which need answering with no less than three different Vacancy in See Committees (ViSC) being in existence in the diocese since the vacancy was announced but with all of them potentially not compliant with the Regulation.”
The nominations the three Canterbury representatives on CNC will take place in the near future but, controversially, due to the new regulations, no male clergy in Canterbury diocese can be elected to the CNC. The new rule requires those elected by the ViSC to include the election of one clergywoman and one lay woman.
Goddard highlights: “Uniquely, Canterbury is only electing three members so when this new rule combines with the rule that at least half of CNC members must be lay, this means that no male clergyperson can be elected.”
There is also a lack of clarity as to how the five members of the Communion have been selected.
Goddard has called for ‘greater transparency and fuller explanations’ about the processes leading to the appointment of the new Archbishop of Canterbury.
John Dunnett, National Director, Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), said: “With typically incisive thinking, Andrew Goddard has put his finger on some of the critical issues around the appointment process, which should be a cause for concern. Time and again, we see that proper process is simply not being followed on significant issues such as these. Andrew’s analysis spells out why confidence and trust in the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury could be undermined if due process is neglected.”
Andrew Goddard’s full analysis can be found here.
