As soon as it was announced that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey, will retire in the autumn, the manoeuvring began over the identity of his successor. I do not know any of the possible candidates personally, none have released manifestos indicating what changes they would make if they were to be chosen as the next Primate of All England, but the news reports tell us of the fiercely opposed liberal and conservative wings of the Church of England. Every institution has its reformers and its conservatives, so why should one with as much history as the Church of England be any different? Quite simply it should not. Indeed, from its very conception in the break from Rome, the Church of England has been characterised by these very differences of opinion. What makes all the political machinations currently going on so unseemly is the fact that it is all designed to please one man. If a genuine debate was taking place about the theological future of our nation, with the aim of moving general public opinion on these matters, then the competition for the leadership of the church would serve a purpose. As it is, all that’s being offered are empty words and gestures because the judgement on the church’s future direction is taken by a small group of civil servants and the Prime Minister, whom they advise.

My difficulties with this are many and various and should be shared by most. Firstly, although the civil servants offered Margaret Thatcher two good and popular candidates for her to choose between when the appointment last came around, she cast both aside as too radical and instead plumped for George Carey, because he was seen by her as a good reliable conservative. In so doing she stained the whole process. Had she known that Carey would be the one to push through the ordination of women priests, I am sure that she would have thought twice about making the then Bishop of Bath and Wells, Archbishop of Canterbury. The ordination of women was a massive turning point in the history of the church and although it caused a great deal of soul-searching, dissent and disruption, I don’t believe that there are many left in the Church of England who now believe it was the wrong decision. It came about by chance and the miscalculation of one person.

Cartoon: Peter Carr

Mrs. Thatcher, being a Methodist, brings me to another point I have against the Prime Minister’s involvement in the decision over who will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. With both opposition party leaders practising Catholics and Tony Blair regularly attending Catholic Mass, no potential maker of the decision regarding the established church has an investment in it. Please don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with members of other faiths taking high political office in this country, indeed I genuinely hope that in future the British government could be headed by a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or member of another major international religion, I just don’t believe that they should then make this decision, which has little or no political imperative. It shouldn’t matter what religion our politicians practise, but with their unnecessary involvement in the business of the church it unfortunately becomes so.

I am not advocating a complete break of the church from the constitution and disestablishment of the Church of England, just a reappraisal of all the roles within it. The Archbishop of Canterbury stepping down and commemorations of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee, 2002, offer the perfect opportunity for sensible grown-up discussions to take place regarding the whole future of the Church in England. Prince Charles said a number of years ago that when he becomes king, he wishes to be ‘Defender of the Faiths’ rather than ‘Defender of the Faith,’ but I believe that is a decision for him to make in conjunction with public opinion, and it doesn’t prevent questions being asked of the relationship between the Church and state right now. The Queen should and certainly will remain as head of the Church of England for the rest of her reign, and that role, however he takes it up, will be inherited by the Prince of Wales. The Royal Family, the Windsors, attend church, pray regularly, and have a definite faith; the Prime Minister, as representative of the Crown in making appointments to the Church does not have to. The constitutional monarchy only retains its authority through the will of the people, and yet the public mood is not reflected in the decisions made directly in its name by government. In some ways I believe it should be, especially in the important decisions such as those over the identity of the Church’s next spiritual leader and representative of this country.

The Church of England, like the Roman Catholic Church, claims Apostolic Succession and this means that members believe all bishops hold the authority of Jesus Christ by the system of each bishop laying hands on the next. They are able to trace this back through the Reformation and Roman Catholic history, to Saint Peter who himself derived the power of guardianship over the Church from Christ. As Apostolic Succession relates to all ordained bishops, it would not be affected if the final decision over the identity of the Archbishop of Canterbury were taken by some fairer form of vote than the current system allows. The Methodist Church has an annually revolving presidency elected by the democratic processes of synod, and though I do not believe that is the way for the Church of England to go, it can claim a closeness to its members that other Churches alas cannot. I believe that if the Church of England is to truly reconnect with and claim to represent its people, then it needs to take back from the state the power for naming its own leader. In separating itself from the implications of gutter politics, but without disestablishment, I believe that the Church of England would strengthen its position in the lives of all English citizens, as well as its place in the constitution, by providing something pure and to be respected.

The Church of England can and must come to represent all that is best about our Christian traditions, and the provision of limited democratic reform would be a massive step forward in reconnecting with the Anglican population of the world. At the moment, too much distinction is made in people’s minds between faith and religion, and of course you can have one without the other; the Church of England should once again show how they work best together, thus offering an even closer relationship with God.

Adam Ellis