GS Misc 765A

SENIOR CHURCH APPOINTMENTS

The Case for Review

1.0 Introduction

1.1   This Private Member's Motion was tabled in January 2004. It gained a useful number of signatures by the end of the February Group of Sessions but by the end of the York Group of Sessions in July had attracted 159 signatures. Synod members appeared to be highly supportive of the underlying principle in the Motion that a review of senior church appointments is timely, as well as having concerns about certain recent appointments in practice.

1.2   The Motion calls for a review of the appointments procedure for all senior ecclesiastical posts (with the exception of diocesan bishops), whether in the gift of the Crown or the diocesan bishop concerned. In effect, it calls for a working party to undertake a review along the lines of Working with the Spirit: choosing diocesan bishops[1], conducted by Baroness Perry of Southwark, but in this case for appointments of suffragan bishops, deans, archdeacons and residentiary canons.

1.3   The matter was last reviewed by a working party chaired by Sir William van Straubenzee, which reported in October 1992, General Synod having debated senior appointments back in 1985. Synod considered the van Straubenzee report[2] in February 1993 in a take note debate, but there was some opposition to its core proposal that the advice on Crown appointments should be tendered directly to the Sovereign by the primate of the province concerned. The report made important general recommendations on how appointments should be made and one consequence was the issuance in 1995 of a Code of Practice for Senior Church Appointments[3] ("the Code"). It is instructive to note that the Code appears not to have been revised since that date.

1.4   Furthermore, the Code does not apply to appointments in the gift of the Crown, essentially deans of the historic cathedrals[4] and certain canonries. One of the recommendations of the Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Cathedrals[5], under the chairmanship of Lady Howe of Aberavon, was that the Church should seek to open discussions with the Crown about the prospects for the introduction of a ‘single system’ of appointment to cathedral posts. No such discussions appear ever to have been commenced. Nor does the Code apply to appointments of deans of parish church cathedrals, archdeaconries, canonries and benefices which revert to the Crown when the priest in question has been appointed to a diocesan bishopric.

1.5   The net result is that the Church of England continues to operate a senior appointments process which is largely unreconstructed, in a climate where in every other walk of life the principles of openness and transparency dictate a radically different approach. Even if secular appointments models only provide a guide to appropriate arrangements for the Church, there can be no argument for retaining the increasingly two-tier structure. The welcome Perry reforms apply only to the appointment of diocesans, while all other senior appointments operate under myriad conventions and practices, the antithesis of an 'integrated and consistent method' referred to in the Motion.

2.0 Motion

2.1   The Motion proposes a review of two related aspects of senior church appointments. Firstly, in (ii) (a), it calls for a review of the functions, demands and requirements of these senior ecclesiastical ministries in a changing Church. It does this because there needs to be an opportunity to review what the Church needs from these ministries, in a resource constrained environment and in conditions under which fresh expressions of church in a challenging context are needed.[6]

2.2   There seems little point in conducting a detailed review of appointments procedures unless the Church is confident it understands the requirements of the ministries to which such appointments are made.  The roles of suffragan bishops and archdeacons in particular could usefully be examined, along with the possibility of combining aspects of their roles with each other or with parochial ministries.

2.3   Secondly, in (ii) (b), the Motion invites a review of two particular aspects of the system, the role and practice adopted by diocesan bishops in the making of nominations to suffragan sees and the role of the Crown in the making of other appointments. It should be noted that in respect of the former, similar considerations apply to the role of diocesans in the appointment of deans of parish church cathedrals[7].

3.0 Suffragan Bishops

3.1   It is not possible to gauge how the Code is operating. It permits considerable freedom to the diocesan and, although the widely held view is that the decisive say in suffragan appointments should remain with the bishop, there appears to be inconsistent practice. For example, the process that led to the nomination of Canon Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading in 2003 appeared to have robust origins. There was widespread consultation and an appointments group was set up not only to advise the bishop but also to engage with, and interview, candidates. What was far less clear, however, was whether the process provided the bishop with sufficient support over his final decision and whether there was adequate consideration of the views and needs of the wider Church to the appointment. The role of the appointments group needs to be defined more closely, such that finalist names from which the bishop makes his choice all carry the support of the group and have been arrived at according to the same procedure.

3.2   Some bishops advertise vacancies and consult very widely in the making of appointments, using advisors for the purpose. Others appear to adopt a more intuitive process, with less overt consultation. Inevitably, the latter process leads to appointments that appear to be more personal and are therefore less easy to defend. The quality of an appointment may or may not be different in the final analysis, but without a robust and open process how can the wider Church have the required level of confidence in the appointment?

3.3   It is important to note, however, that suffragan bishops are still appointed by the Crown, although the convention is that the Prime Minister advises the Sovereign to accept the first name (which has the support of the primate concerned). There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that a similar procedure could not be adopted in the case of other Crown appointments, such that the Church would have a single system in place for all deaneries, suffragan bishops and archdeacons, even in cases when patronage would have reverted to the Crown.

3.4   A further issue surrounding the appointment of suffragan bishops, highlighted by Perry, is the fact that in a high proportion of cases (89% between 1996-2000) nominations to diocesan sees were of men in episcopal orders.[8] On that basis, the confidence of the Church in the process for their appointment as suffragans is even more critical, as they form the majority of the candidate pool for future promotion to diocesan.

4.0 Crown Deaneries

4.1   The process for the appointment of a dean of an historic cathedral is substantially different from that governing a parish church cathedral dean. While the difference can obviously be explained on historical grounds, it is hard to justify its continued existence. The Crown does not make use of any appointments group. Nor is there open discussion and interaction with candidates. It seems that the Crown's advisors take soundings, an entirely one-way process by which names are suggested. It is therefore entirely possible for a dean to be appointed following the discussion of a short list by only two people, the Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary and the diocesan bishop concerned. It is inexplicable that a cathedral council and chapter of an historic cathedral has no say whatever in the appointment of a dean, other than to contribute to the production of a statement of needs and suggest names. What PCC would accept the nomination of an incumbent without knowledge of his or her identity? Furthermore, it is quite unclear what locus the diocesan bishop has in the matter. It is assumed that he has a power of veto, as does the archbishop of the province concerned (Lord Carey has intimated that he exercised this power during his archiepiscopate), although the strict position is probably that the final choice of appointee actually rests with the Crown. What is clear is that the diocesan is unable to consult over names (except presumably with the primate of his province), which makes his role in the process unnecessarily difficult.

4.2   There are few contemporary arguments for the support of this process. Its use means that, for example, the method of choosing a dean can be a result of pure circumstance. The recent appointments of the Dean of Derby and the Archdeacon of Lewes and Hastings were Crown appointments because the previous incumbents were appointed to diocesan bishoprics. What effect did this have on the appointments? Were the same names considered as might have been had the vacancies occurred in a different way? Was the role of the diocesan bishop different?

4.3   It has been argued that there are benefits of this regime. For example, a dean who has been appointed other than by the diocesan might be able to exercise his or her ministry in a slightly more independent way and have the confidence to be a critical friend of the diocesan and in diocesan circles. Whether or not this argument is a sound one, it cannot of itself justify the current process.

4.4   It is clear that, in the case of the appointment of diocesans[9], the appointee will over time, at least currently, assume a seat in the House of Lords and his appointment should properly therefore be one for the Crown, but no such arguments apply in the case of deans.

5.0 Church/State

5.1   There will be those who will argue that a review of senior church appointments cannot go very far without the question of the Church/State relationship coming in to play. The van Straubenzee report effectively foundered in Synod for this reason. The then Archbishop of York, Dr. Habgood, said "I urge Synod members to stop wandering about in this particular minefield but to concentrate on some of the helpful points elsewhere in this report." It was a conservative response at a time when the Church was preoccupied with more radical adventures and it didn’t want to rock the boat.

5.2   The situation in 2005 is rather different. For one thing, the failure to modernise the procedure for appointments has left the Church even more out of step with contemporary practice in other walks of life. By continuing to exist under the Crown patronage regime, the Church is denied the structural freedom it badly needs to adjust to the needs and demands of the 21st century.

5.3   However, this Motion should not be seen as having a disestablishment motive. The points where there is State control (if that is the right term) of the Church of England are limited to appointments and legislation. Any change to the way the Crown is involved in the appointments process (other than in respect of diocesans) is hardly going to strike at the heart of the Church/State relationship in terms of the mission and ministry of the Church of England to the whole nation. Indeed, an integrated and consistent procedure (the 'single system') would lead to more dynamic appointments and allow more freedom in the process. In the modern idiom, it would permit more joined-up thinking.

5.4   Such a single system would also benefit the clergy, who are the subject of the current regime and who ought to be entitled to know whether their names are being considered for preferment. A single list of potential future diocesans, favoured by Perry, should be adopted for all senior appointments and operated consistently.

6.0     Case for Review, Scope and Timing

6.1   This paper has focused on the case for a comprehensive independent review, through a discussion of the different appointments processes at work in relation to senior ecclesiastical offices.

6.2   Inevitably debate will also focus on whether a review should have the scope envisaged by the Motion and also whether now is the right time to commission such a review. Private members' motions of this type that strike at core Church issues are often met with the suggestion that the best course of action is for a more limited review. In this way, Synod is invited to support the general thrust, but in a way that inevitably militates against thorough analysis and recommendation. As to timing, the lobbying which led to the Perry review was marked by calls that the Church had more important tasks facing it and that in any event the system worked well. That review found otherwise. Resources for this review will be an issue, but that should not be allowed to drive the debate.

6.3   It has been pointed out that there has not been a recent review of the involvement of the Crown in Church appointments, at least not since van Straubenzee and the much earlier Chadwick Commission of 1970.[10] If that is thought to be a principal concern of the Motion, why not make that the focus of a review? The answer is that Crown appointments are only a part of the overall senior church appointments structure and that such a review would therefore be limited. It would also put an unnecessary spotlight on the distracting issue of establishment.

6.4   An alternative is merely to request a review of the Code. While much needed, that would also fail to take in the overall picture and would likely only lead to a refinement of the dual appointments structure.

6.5   Importantly, neither 6.3 nor 6.4 would permit the broader review of the types of senior ecclesiastical ministry that the Church requires today, and to which the appointments procedures must be closely aligned.

7.0      Way Forward

7.1     The Motion requests the Archbishops' Council to commission a working party (to be chaired by a person independent of the Council and the Synod) to review all these matters. It is not prescriptive in what areas the working party should cover, nor does it invite a particular outcome. It does, however, impose a timetable. There is no reason why a well-organised group cannot undertake this task in eighteen months. In that way, any proposed changes can be considered and implemented in time for the challenges ahead for the Church, whether they are the reforms to the Pastoral Measure etc.8 or the possibility of the consecration of women bishops.9

7.2 A few Synod members may argue that the current opaque and arcane procedures actually serve the Church well and enable appointments to be made that would be impossible by adopting a more structured process. That was a criticism of the CAC, namely that it produced bland appointments of men more noted for their managerial skills. It is not borne out by the facts. There is no reason to believe that a Crown Nominations Commission-type process adopted, for example, in the making of nominations to suffragan sees and all deaneries is not capable of resulting in original appointments from the broadest candidate universe.

7.3 The Motion is commended to Synod as a much needed and practical proposal to enable these and related issues to be fully explored and recommendations made.  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                                              
Member, House of Laity of the General Synod (St. Albans 480)
Member, Appointments Committee of the Church of England
31st December, 2004