THERE can be little doubt that the public standing of bishops has been damaged by recent policies and controversies. Equally, many congregations and clergy feel a growing distance between themselves and their senior diocesan teams, though there will always be exceptions.

The time has come to take a closer look at the reasons for this. There are immediate and practical reasons for the discomfort with many of the people in senior leadership positions. More fundamentally, there are underlying reasons that demonstrate the need for theological underpinning of how the office and work of a bishop is understood. Unless these concerns are addressed, the Church of England will lose its respected place among the community of episcopal Churches.

It is necessary to reform the less-than-satisfactory methods by which clergy are considered and then selected for all episcopal ministries. More transparency could give a greater sense of ownership by the local church and diocese. In her 2001 report on choosing diocesan bishops, Baroness Perry pointed out that, at the time, 89 per cent of recently appointed diocesan bishops were already in episcopal orders. The feeder group of suffragans are selected by their diocesan bishops.

This has the appearance of a closed system. In 2014, Lord Green, a former group chairman of HSBC, suggested a “talent pool” of those who might be considered for episcopal ministry and given appropriate training and preparation. Some progress has been made, but confidence remains low.

There are examples of different appointment methods which need to be considered. In Finland and Sweden, there are open elections in the vacant diocese. In the Church in Wales, bishops are elected by an electoral college made up of six members elected by each diocese, three lay members and three clergy, and 12 members elected by the diocese to which the bishop is being elected. In the Episcopal Church in the United States, bishops are elected by the diocesan convention. No system could be transplanted into the Church of England directly, but the principle of open and transparent election cannot be ignored.

BEHIND all the practicalities of appointment, there is a need to look again at the core nature of episcopal ministry. What are bishops for? We know about the origins of the word episkopos. From its original use for a superintendent in the Athenian Empire, it was adopted by the Early Church. The task and ministry envisaged was to “see over” congregations, grouped into what would become a diocese. A bishop in synod is still where the Church is in its fullest manifestation. My own reciprocal redefinition is “watching over one another in community”.

It is clear from this early understanding that a bishop is not a managing director and not even the project initiator and leader of a diocese. We know that the model of shepherd was an early concept, and remains the principal image in all consecration services. We know, also, but appear to have forgotten, that the document Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, agreed at a 1982 meeting of the World Council of Churches in Lima, says that all positions of responsibility need to arise from our common life in the body of Christ, that bishops should be aware of the apostolic tradition that has called them, and that they should be a focus for unity, a fundamental requirement that appears to have delayed some recent appointments.

Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry also says that the episcopal ministries are exercised individually, collegially, and communally. Those newly appointed to these ministries need to understand how this balance can be worked out. The present feeder system appears to prioritise individualism. Missioners and evangelism specialists become bishops with attitudes already formed. Synod performers and ecclesiastical networkers are preferred over theologians or experienced parish clergy. Driven by party allegiance, our bishops have formed themselves into ecclesiastical elites, unaccountable and distant.

IT IS an understanding of our Anglican theology and heritage which needs to be evident in future appointment processes. Those involved in selection need to be looking for different qualities in our bishops. Once they are in post, compulsory in-service training and mentoring need to be a requirement. The pressures of office have a noticeable effect on personality. There are ways in which those appointed can be pulled back from temptations towards autocracy. It was the theologian Paul Tillich who said that hubris — wanting to be like God — was the greatest sin.

With a renewed confidence in the appointments system, with supportive theological mentoring, and repeated challenging in their synods, our bishops can come closer to their people and demonstrate a more Christlike form of ministry. As an immediate practical step to show a certain amount of penitence, all bishops could abandon their beloved purple shirts — and not just for Lent.

The Ven. Dr Malcolm Grundy is a former Archdeacon of Craven and founding director of the Foundation for Church Leadership. His books include Leadership and Oversight: New models for episcopal ministry (Mowbray/Continuum, 2011) (Books, 9 December 2011).