SENIOR CHURCH APPOINTMENTS

The Case for Review

EGGS members will have received my background note on this Private Member’s Motion[1] and the Note of the Secretary General[2] which provides some additional material, although it repeats much that is referenced in my paper. The Motion calls for a review of all senior church appointments (other than diocesans) on the basis that the Church badly needs an integrated and consistent method of making these appointments.

The Motion does not tie the hand of any Working Party, but does request that two related areas are examined: (i) the nature and requirements of these senior offices; and (ii) the method of appointment to them, with specific reference to suffragan bishops and deans. It does this because a review of process is an excellent opportunity also to consider the current requirements and demands of these ministries and because I sense that at times preferments are made without enough consideration of matching the gifts of candidates to the needs of the offices.

Why is this Motion generating some heat?

• Some bishops may be concerned that their independence over appointments might be challenged. In fact, they should be the beneficiaries of a more robust appointments regime.

• There is a mistaken belief in some quarters that this is about Reading and St. Albans. The record shows that I have been challenging the appointments processes in the Church of England now since 1997, when I called for what became the Perry review. Certainly, controversial appointments raise questions about process and it would be good to know the facts, but this is tangential to the Motion.

• Some cite creeping disestablishment. I don’t deny that an integrated model would mean a changed role for Downing Street, but one of the advantages of an unwritten Constitution and the use of conventions is that this need not be revolutionary! It hardly strikes at the heart of the Church/State relationship.

• Some are concerned that the Church does not have the resources for a review at this time and that in any event ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’ That argument was advanced before Perry, which found otherwise. If the matter is considered important enough to examine, the resources will be justified.

What might a new appointments model look like? That would be for the Working Party to decide, but it might bear some of the features of the CNC in terms of openness and the use of an appointments group. Importantly, it would be a single system, as favoured for all cathedral appointments by the Howe review. If the State favours the use of transparent and merit based public appointments systems (as were developed by the Nolan Committee’s First Report on Standards in Public Life[3] etc.) then the Established Church might usefully borrow some of that thinking. That led to the creation of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) and was founded on the Nolan principles and the fact that all appointments “.... should be made after advice from a panel or committee which includes an independent element.” The clergy deserve no less and, as the demands of contemporary church leadership grow, the requirement to consider a wide range of candidates and for all appointments to be seen to be based on merit is critical.

I am grateful for the support the Motion has already received and look forward to the debate! Overall, the Church of England requires appointments processes which are consistent with the vision of a mission-shaped church. The considered recommendations of a full-scale Working Party, if implemented, could have far-reaching benefits for the future of the Church and those chosen to lead it.

Anthony W. Archer
House of Laity of the General Synod (St. Albans 480)
Member, Appointments Committee of the Church of England
awarcher@compuserve.com