Elect the bishops in Britain!

Andrew Linzey, member of the Faculty of Theology at Oxford University and Director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, writes that the Church of England has an historic opportunity now that the Prime Minister has decided to pull the government out of the process used to choose British bishops. Prof. Linzey calls for the Church of England to follow the model used by the Episcopal Church and have the laity and clergy of each diocese directly choose their bishops by election.

Linzey writes:

Bishops are currently chosen by the Crown Nominations Commission, a mixture of synodical and local representatives, church and state advisers, and the archbishops themselves. No aspect of church government is more imbued with unease and suspicion, if not downright distrust. The proceedings are confidential so that even those who are under consideration may not be aware of it, and the antecedent process (I am told) involves bishops circulating lists of individuals deemed suitable for preferment.

This process has traditionally been defended on the ground that, since these are Crown appointments, there is no other way because confidentiality must be ensured. But one result of appointment by committee is that the process of making bishops has become remote from ordinary Anglicans. Indeed, most are in total ignorance of the system and assume (with some justification) that appointments are rewards for deference and docility. Since the heady days of Bishops John Robinson and David Jenkins, appointments have increasingly been of the “safe” managerial variety. Church leaders, in the words of Donald Reeves, “have probably never been so competent, hard-working, moderate and dull”.

…Candidates should be required — as is currently the case in the Episcopal Church — to answer questions in person and in writing, usually about their own histories, their beliefs, as well as their views on church polity. The diocesan cathedral should be given over to a whole week’s public interrogation of the candidates, interspersed with prayer and communion, culminating in a ballot based on the preferable vote system. We would at last see the Body of Christ in operation — as a body with equal votes for all.

Such an arrangement would have one redeeming characteristic above all: transparency. With no more closed committees or backroom jockeying for power, Anglicans could debate openly the issues that face them and, where there are differences — well, at least they will be public ones properly aired and in the context of prayer. Some will reply that this devolution of power would reduce the Church to autonomous dioceses and threaten catholicity. But safeguards could easily be built into the system. In the Episcopal Church, for example, each diocesan election must be ratified by a majority of “consents” from diocesan bishops and their standing committees. Thus the Episcopal Church allows a high degree of autonomy within a unitary system.

Read the full article here.

Bishops are currently chosen by the Crown Nominations Commission, a mixture of synodical and local representatives, church and state advisers, and the archbishops themselves. No aspect of church government is more imbued with unease and suspicion, if not downright distrust. The proceedings are confidential so that even those who are under consideration may not be aware of it, and the antecedent process (I am told) involves bishops circulating lists of individuals deemed suitable for preferment.

This process has traditionally been defended on the ground that, since these are Crown appointments, there is no other way because confidentiality must be ensured. But one result of appointment by committee is that the process of making bishops has become remote from ordinary Anglicans. Indeed, most are in total ignorance of the system and assume (with some justification) that appointments are rewards for deference and docility. Since the heady days of Bishops John Robinson and David Jenkins, appointments have increasingly been of the “safe” managerial variety. Church leaders, in the words of Donald Reeves, “have probably never been so competent, hard-working, moderate and dull”.

…Candidates should be required — as is currently the case in the Episcopal Church — to answer questions in person and in writing, usually about their own histories, their beliefs, as well as their views on church polity. The diocesan cathedral should be given over to a whole week’s public interrogation of the candidates, interspersed with prayer and communion, culminating in a ballot based on the preferable vote system. We would at last see the Body of Christ in operation — as a body with equal votes for all.

Such an arrangement would have one redeeming characteristic above all: transparency. With no more closed committees or backroom jockeying for power, Anglicans could debate openly the issues that face them and, where there are differences — well, at least they will be public ones properly aired and in the context of prayer. Some will reply that this devolution of power would reduce the Church to autonomous dioceses and threaten catholicity. But safeguards could easily be built into the system. In the Episcopal Church, for example, each diocesan election must be ratified by a majority of “consents” from diocesan bishops and their standing committees. Thus the Episcopal Church allows a high degree of autonomy within a unitary system.

Read the full article here.

Past Posts
Categories