“THE Archbishop of Canterbury can become so oppressed by the weight of responsibility that it becomes difficult to let anything go. Consultation with those outside the immediate Lambeth circle tends to suffer.”
These words, written more than 20 years ago by a former Archbishop of York, Lord Habgood, form part of an appendix to the 2002 report Resourcing Archbishops, chaired by Anthony Mellows. So often, reports are read once, then consigned to the bookshelf. The Mellows report, along with To Lead and to Serve (2001), considering the See of Canterbury, chaired by Douglas Hurd, is worthy of being dusted off.
Discussion about the impossible nature of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury is not new. The Hurd report was keen to emphasise that the part played by the Archbishop is “not a chief executive but first and foremost a priest and pastor”. There had been consultation about a potential third province — following the eighth-century precedent for an Archbishop of Lichfield — but Hurd decided that this would represent “a wrong-headed increase in the number of generals at the top of the Church” at a time when the infantry in the parishes had heavier burdens. Instead, it recommended policy portfolios for senior bishops (which we now see, for example, with lead bishops for safeguarding, and health and social care). The Archbishop of York’s role has also been beefed up as Hurd suggested.
SINCE Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher’s time (1945 to 1961), the Anglican Communion has consumed increasing amounts of archepiscopal time; Hurd recommended a bishop from overseas come to Lambeth to act as the Archbishop’s right hand on Communion affairs. The subsequent Mellows review was cautious about the risk of having someone in episcopal orders doing a non-episcopal job. None the less, we have seen a shift, first, to having an Archbishop (Dr Josiah Idowu-Fearon) as secretary-general at the Anglican Communion Office, then Bishop Anthony Poggo leading on Communion affairs at Lambeth, just as Hurd proposed, and, later, becoming secretary-general himself.
The Hurd report also wrestled with throwing open the appointment of the Archbishop to elsewhere in the Communion, as well as the possibility of separating presidency of the Communion from Canterbury. But it concluded that, because of our established nature, the former is somewhat complicated. On the latter, it is a case of plus ça change, 20 years on: differences over doctrine were so evident that “it would not be easy to devise a system of electing a President of the Communion that did not pitchfork these divisive issues into the process of election”.
In Rome earlier this year, the Primates pushed back against potential structural changes to the Communion. The revised Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) paper, promised at the close of the meeting and published this week, will warrant careful reading.
The amount of time an Archbishop actually spends in the Communion varies hugely: in 1999, Lord Carey spent 32 days abroad, and this was thought to be a lot. For Hurd, an Archbishop’s primary responsibility was at home, where his [sic] immediate jurisdiction lies, and: “the clearer the Archbishop’s leadership at home, the more effective will be his leadership of the whole Communion.”
But Hurd also recommended a “strategic distancing” from the detailed management of the Church of England. This is worth pondering as the new Governance Measure approaches the General Synod again, since it suggests that the Archbishops sit on the board of the new central church mega-charity. For Hurd, the policy goal was to attempt to delegate tasks from Lambeth to elsewhere as much as possible. The primarily lay group behind the report sought ways to enable the Archbishop “to hack his way through the thickets of everyday work in order to sustain this spiritual leadership”.
THE creation of a new position of Chief of Staff at Lambeth Palace (initially in place of a Bishop at Lambeth, a position later re-established in 2013) was to help with that hacking, and Mellows suggested that this should be a lay person, so as to avoid even subconscious influence or obedience. This role was to have the “closest working relationship” with the Archbishop, but also with those in leadership at each of the National Church Institutions.
The Chief of Staff was to ensure a smooth, well-run organisation, with a “stable, harmonious and integrated staff”, and spot any pitfalls and dangers that lay in wait for the Archbishop. And also to lead “a carefully constructed and authoritative planning team” that would kick in as soon as an Archbishop announced retirement — to plan, prepare, and assist at all stages of the difficult transition process, for both the incumbent and their successor.
In some ways, we are living in a world so different to 2001 that it feels like another planet; but, in others, even a glimpse at these reports feels like Groundhog Day. Before the Crown Nominations process kicks off in earnest, however, let us pause and reflect on the role’s shape and support that will serve it. As Lord Habgood writes, the Archbishop “cannot afford to be a workaholic . . . hordes of advisers and scriptwriters cannot rescue him if he is mentally and spiritually exhausted”.
Many in the press have already begun pushing names for Canterbury. Whoever is chosen will also need the right support in place. And an awful lot of prayer, from all of us.
Rebecca Chapman is a General Synod member for Southwark diocese.