Appointment of next Archbishop of Canterbury

From Canon Derek Carpenter

Madam, — Are others, like me, bemused and frustrated that, when Pope Francis’s successor is likely to be announced within three weeks or so of his death, we are having to wait months for the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury? Perhaps we have something to learn about the process of “discernment” from our Roman Catholic colleagues.

It was not always so. I was born when Cosmo Lang was Archbishop of Canterbury: when his predecessor Randall Davidson retired (the first to do so) on 12 November 1928, Lang was installed on 4 December, less than a month later. When he, in turn, retired on 31 March 1942, William Temple was installed on St George’s Day, three weeks later; and when Temple died on 26 October 1944 after only two-and-a-half years in office (with him “we are burying the hopes of the Church of England,” one commentator wrote), Geoffrey Fisher was installed just over two months later.

When his successor, Michael Ramsey, retired in November 1974 (though it had been announced in March), Donald Coggan was installed seven weeks afterwards; exactly two months after his resignation in 1980, the installation of Robert Runcie took place, and, when he resigned at the end of January 1991, George Carey’s appointment was confirmed less than two months later, and his enthronement took place after only a further three weeks.

Before he officially retired, at the end of October 2002, Rowan Williams was announced as his successor; that was confirmed on 2 December, when he officially became Archbishop of Canterbury, and he was enthroned less than three months later. He retired on the last day of 2012, and Justin Welby was installed less than three months after that.

I am well aware of the need for a time for discernment, but, if the Holy Spirit can inform the hearts and minds of 135 cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church, can we not expect something similar for the 17 voting members of the Crown Nominations Commission? Perhaps locking cardinals away (cum clave — “with a key”) is literally the key to it, and a similar process might equally serve the Church of England well.

One of the problems might be the bureaucracy with which the C of E has enfolded itself since 1969, with the otherwise welcome introduction of synodical government; but, while the Roman Catholic Church looks expectantly for white smoke, the C of E seems burdened and slowed by red tape.

DEREK CARPENTER
39 Chatfield Way
East Malling
Kent ME19 6QD

From the Revd John-Francis Friendship TSSF

Madam, — Given the increasing proliferation of extreme right-wing political narratives gradually infiltrating various aspects of our public life, and the support that these receive from certain religious academics, I cannot be alone in hoping that those responsible for putting forward names for a future Archbishop of Canterbury will choose candidates whose theology is rooted in people such as William Temple and Óscar Romero, and their spirituality informed by Francis of Assisi and Vincent de Paul, rather than that emerging from certain well-funded, powerful circles in the United States.

JOHN-FRANCIS FRIENDSHIP
22 The Old Fire Station
1 Eaglesfield Road
London SE18 3BT

From Canon Judith Maltby

Madam, — I write in support of the call from the Bishop of Croydon, Dr Rosemarie Mallett, for a review of the Five Guiding Principles. In common with her, I am not calling for their abolition (Letter, 17 April), but, like her, I have serious concerns about what at best might be seen as “mission creep” and at worst, their abuse.

Take the example of A Statement on Episcopal Consecrations (July 2020), issued by the then Archbishop of Canterbury without any prior theological discussion or wider debate beyond the House of Bishops. Just what the Five Guiding Principles had to do with the abrogation of a Primate’s ancient ministry as chief consecrator in their province, let alone the injury done to ecumenism by making it numerically impossible to include in the laying on of hands bishops from other parts of the Anglican Communion, Porvoo, and the Old Catholics, we were not told.

Despite attempts to ask about the statement’s alleged grounding in the Principles, the legal advice was repeatedly that the Archbishops could not be asked questions in the Synod when acting in their “metropolitan capacity”.

Fast forward to 2025. To my knowledge, no consecrations of this type ever took place in the Northern Province, and the only consecrations under this frankly bizarre interpretation were on 15 July 2020 in Lambeth Palace Chapel (News, 17 July 2020). By June 2022, Dr Mallett was consecrated, as is right, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by many other bishops in the laying on of hands.

The Statement on Episcopal Consecrations had clearly gone up in a puff of smoke by 2022, and that is for the good. But why on earth was it made in the first place? Was this an attempt to use the Five Guiding Principles to future-proof against the possibility of a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury or York?

JUDITH MALTBY
General Synod member (Universities and Theological Education Institutions in Convocation)
33 Magdalen Road
Oxford OX4 1RB

Supreme Court ruling on definition of ‘a woman’

From the Revd Richard Dormandy

Madam, — Amid responses to the Supreme Court’s definition of “a woman”, the Church’s voice has been worryingly quiet. Lawyers have argued the ruling hasn’t actually changed the law, but if this message of “nothing has really changed” is to be accepted, then why was the case brought? And, if the ruling is innocuous, why did the Court itself plead that its words shouldn’t be weaponised? Clearly, they could see the writing on the wall, and so it’s urgent for us to speak out from a range of viewpoints.

First, this is about truth. Humans are not “simply male or female”. Chromosomal variety is a biological fact. Errors of judgement in the certification of intersex babies are a historical fact. When a trans person “comes out”, and friends say, “I always knew this about you,” this is a social fact. All these facts point to the inescapable truth that a birth certificate is a far-from-certain determinant of gender, and is, therefore, unsafe to be considered the sole, binding, and final word on the matter. As Christians, our job is to speak for truth.

Second, this is about safety. If safeguarding is theologically and pastorally important for us, the Church needs to see the safety issues arising from this judgment. Can we simply affirm that trans women would now be body-searched by male police officers? Surely not! Can we simply agree that, perhaps after decades of living as a woman, a trans person must use male toilets? A disgraceful indignity!

The ruling itself doesn’t make such actions illegal, but a trans person could be challenged, humiliated, picked on, complained about, sent packing. Can we sit by while some trans people become fearful of going out to the pub, theatre, cinema, or church because of potential shaming? This is about psychological and mental safety.

Third, this is about exclusion — even vilification. Trans people are already a marginalised group. Can it be godly to push them further into the shadows? With whom do we stand? Whose Saviour was crucified between two outcasts?

Fourth, this is about justice. For more than ten years, the Gender Recognition Act has given legal recognition to the acquired gender of trans people. Now the Court has said that in practical situations you will be treated as a “third-space” person — neither male nor female. How can the Church possibly allow this injustice to pass without strong objection?

So, what can Christians do? Some suggestions for action, therefore: (i) issue a policy statement welcoming all people, specifically trans people; (ii) re-label our single-sex toilets as “including trans” — yes, it is perfectly legal; (iii) raise this issue in sermons, PCCs, and synods; (iv) join public protests; (v) get educated about the trans experience; (vi) renounce the fetish of balance: this issue is too urgent.

RICHARD DORMANDY
49 Trinity Rise
London SW2 2QP

Topics for continuing ministerial development

From the Revd Paul Arnesen

Madam, — I join Alan Stanley in his concerns about continuing ministerial development (Letter, 17 April). Recently I have been seeking permission to officiate. I am glad to have received both national and diocesan safeguarding training and agree that it is very important to have had this opportunity. I would also, however, have appreciated the opportunity to take part in a refresher course in parish ministry, and to know that there would be opportunities for ongoing ministerial development.

I am sure that others returning to professional work in retirement, like doctors, or nurses, would be required to attend further training to ensure that they were up to speed on the skills required. But no mention has been made of anything like this.

PAUL ARNESEN
Criffel View, Torpenhow
Wigton, Cumbria CA7 1JF

From the Revd Des Williamson

Madam, — In response to Alan Stanley’s letter: I have never understood why knowledge of or training in understanding Stages of Faith is not required for priests. This is based on Erickson’s educational-development model, but relates to how people’s faith changes over time. It has been immensely useful to me over the years, particularly with people undergoing deconstruction of faith. Such people worry that they are losing their faith, and to be told they are “backsliding” by those ignorant of the theory is extremely unhelpful, and often results in their leaving church and sometimes giving up on faith, too.

I have encountered many such people outside of the Church who have forged their own way in faith because the Church did not have any answers (i.e. their priest didn’t get them). Sadly, there are now more former church members than existing ones.

I am often asked how I put up with the Church and its narrowness, but this is from folk who have been squeezed out of conservative churches with simplistic understandings of faith. A good foundation in understanding the Stages of Faith would make a huge difference to many priests, who should, in my opinion, know these basics.

DES WILLIAMSON
The Vicarage, St Mark’s Road
Epsom Downs KT18 5RD

Alternative services

From the Revd Simon Falshaw

Madam, — Your leader comment (“Maimed rite”, 17 April) expresses sadness at the holding of separate chrism services by opponents of Prayers of Love and Faith. You suggest that arguably this is an aggressive act and so places the responsibility for such a move solely on the shoulders of those who hold them. It is a perverse and sad argument to blame those who do not want to change for changing things.

If the Church of England were a convoy of cars arriving at a level crossing, with red lights and the barriers down, those revising doctrine would be like those proceeding to cross the crossing despite the warnings. When some didn’t follow, they would turn back and say “Why are you breaking up the convoy? You are a cause of disunity,” and “Your views are a danger to the Church and people outside the Church.”

If the Church fractures, those who are faithful cannot be blamed.

SIMON FALSHAW
17 Castlewood Drive
Sheffield S10 4FH

Harvard view of veritas

From the Revd Ulric Gerry

Madam, — Dr Eve Poole’s article “In the US, stones cry out for truth” (Analysis, 25 April) tells how the bricks of Harvard, and our churches, cry out “Truth” in uncertain times. What she, perhaps, did not know was that the Harvard motto originally was “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae”, or “Truth for Christ and the Church”.

This was later shortened to a simple “Veritas” on three books; the top two were shown facing upward, representing the pursuit of knowledge through human reason. The bottom book was faced down, symbolising that some truth is accessible only through divine revelation.

From 1843, all three books faced upwards: human reason was deemed sufficient, and divine revelation was no longer required. So, if the Harvard stones cry out anything, it is the West’s abandonment of Christ and his truth. It is a reminder that the Eternal Word is ultimately witnessed through living flesh and blood.

ULRIC GERRY
The Vicarage, Ryefield Avenue
Uxbridge UB10 9BT