As the College of Bishops gathers in Oxford next week for its regular September residential, the Bishops of Penrith and Huntingdon remain Acting Bishops of Carlisle and Ely respectively and will probably be so into the second half of next year. It is also probable that there will be perhaps 5 or 6 bishops present who were interviewed to become Bishop of Carlisle or Ely but all of whom discovered that, in the words of the Archbishops—last December (York for Carlisle) and repeated exactly in July (Canterbury for Ely)—in both cases the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), proved unable to “reach the level of consensus required to nominate a new Diocesan Bishop”.
That phrase signals that among the 14 voting members of the CNC (comprising three groups: the two Archbishops, 6 of the Central Members elected by General Synod, 6 Local Members elected by and from the diocese’s Vacancy in See Committee) no candidate had been able to secure the support of 10 of the members (at least two-thirds of voting members are required) and so be nominated to the Crown to fill the see. A fuller account of the processes of CNC discernment is offered in a section of my longer PDF article.
This situation is not unprecedented—there were similarly two failures back at the start of Justin Welby’s primacy with Hereford (March 2014) and Oxford (May 2015) and it seems that, as I discussed at the time, his own appointment to Canterbury was one where achieving the necessary level of consensus was also challenging. It is, however, highly unusual and concerning to have two failures in such quick succession. This means that the current CNC (including 6 pairs of new Central Members elected in July 2022—see details about the election and result) has in the first two of its five years failed to nominate in 25% of its 8 Commissions. In contrast, its predecessor did not fail in any of the 16 Commissions over its full five-year term.
One can imagine that at least informally there will be much discussion among the bishops about what is going on with CNC. It is particularly concerning since between 2016 and 2022 there have been several extensive formal reviews and Synod discussions and decisions concerning the functioning of CNC. For more details on these see again my longer PDF article.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement after the Ely CNC made clear that
Together with the Archbishop of York and others, there will also need to be a period of reflection on the implications of this decision on the Church of England more generally.
It is noteworthy that, in contrast to the statements after the two previous failures, neither Archbishop offered reassurances, honoured the intentions of those involved, or expressed confidence in the CNC processes such as that the Commission
felt that we needed more time to discern the next stages for mission and ministry in the Diocese. Taking time over appointments is important and the Commission is utterly committed to finding the right person to be your Bishop (Hereford)
or that the outcome should be taken
as a sign of the CNC’s commitment to finding the right person to be your next bishop (Oxford).
Some people are quite clear, despite the strict confidentiality of the processes, that they know exactly what is going on. Anthony Archer, who served on CNC as a Central Member in 2005-07 and again in 2017-21 wrote in a Letter to Church Times, 19th July 2024 that
The failure of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) to nominate a candidate for the see of Ely (news story here) needs to be called out for what it is: a grotesque failure of a process taken over by a group of conservatives wanting to gerrymander the composition of the House of Bishops. It is misleading of the Archbishop of Canterbury to refer to a “lengthy process of discernment”. The members of the CNC who thwarted the process played no part in any discernment process. They simply came to the commission with little yellow notes in their back pockets reminding them of “LLF’ and “no women”. That is not discernment.
unless someone in CNC has leaked information, he can have no idea of the dynamics. Should, for example, the appointment of someone eminently suitable have been blocked by liberal members who refused to compromise, Mr Archer would not know. Because of confidentiality, the members of the CNC can neither correct him nor defend themselves.
Because of the highly confidential nature of the process, even family and close friends of CNC members are kept in the dark about the discernment for any particular vacancy and members are unable to explain what has happened, how they acted, and why. It is therefore impossible for anyone other than the 14 present (whose perceptions will likely vary) to reach an informed judgment why any particular CNC did not reach the level of consensus required. This makes the current concern to understand and rectify the situation very difficult to address.
As with any failure to achieve the sought outcome from a process there are many possible contributory factors that might result in no candidate gaining 10 votes. Some might be judgments specific to the particular diocesan process – poor candidate performances at interviews, a belief that no candidate has clearly satisfied the needs of the diocese, insufficient consensus among Local Members, a lack of confidence in the management of the process.
As Archer’s letter makes clear, however, some believe that the problems arise because of more deep-seated fundamental questions relating to the publicly known, settled conscientious theological convictions of CNC members and their presumed consequent voting pattern across different nomination processes. Two have been highlighted in public commentary: attitudes to women bishops and attitudes to PLF/marriage/sexuality.
In relation to opposition to women candidates another former CNC member, April Alexander, has highlighted this concern claiming that
if, as now, there are four members of the central CNC who do not support the notion of women as bishops…any successful candidate has to achieve 100 per cent of the remaining ten members. If a single member of the diocesan six is also opposed to women as bishops, then the die is cast against a woman bishop from the first day of the CNC deliberations (Letter to Church Times 17th May 2024).
The Bishop of Dover has gone further and spoken of the CNC as “diametrically opposed to women in leadership”. While it is true that 3 members out of the now 10 serving Central Members (Benfield, Dailey and Scowen) voted against women bishops it is not true that on any CNC there are always 4 central members opposed to women bishops. Under the new system the norm is that one member of each of the elected 6 central CNC pairs serves on each Commission. These 4 members are found in 3 different pairs and the other 3 pairs all comprise supporters. All Central Members were, of course, elected by General Synod whose members could check candidates’ voting records or ask them questions.
It is also the case that a person having voted against a development does not necessarily mean that, once the development has been duly accepted as the mind of the church, they would refuse to work with it. It is quite possible—we simply do not know—that some or all of the 3 who voted against women bishops have nevertheless voted for women candidates on CNC.
What we do know is that this CNC has nominated two women as bishops (Peterborough and Sodor and Man). This represents 33.3% of the 6 nominations (though only 25% of the CNC outcomes if one includes the two failures to nominate). The previous CNC (2017-22) nominated 5 women over 16 nominations, a very slightly lower proportion. While caution is needed due to various complexities and there are clearly issues that do need addressing here (again see the fuller discussion and figures in the PDF) it is not immediately obvious given these figures that, set in this wider historical context, the current CNC is more biased against women candidates in the ways being claimed or that these beliefs of its members explain the failure to nominate in Carlisle or Ely.
Whatever the views and voting of current members there is a clear and paradoxical but largely unrecognised bias embedded in the CNC process that may make it more difficult to appoint women. Women and men are, in reality, being considered for slightly different jobs because under the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 a new woman diocesan goes to the front of the queue for a seat in the House of the Lords. This means both
that a woman has to be more obviously immediately capable for this role than a man (who would normally wait several years), and
that a diocese appointing a woman will therefore have less of their bishop’s focussed time and attention from early in their position due to their responsibilities in the Lords, likely a concern for Local Members on CNC.
The current plan to extend this process of ensuring women bishops are in Parliament means that this situation is set to continue.
A more likely theological conviction shaping CNC discernment is the live political debate where (unlike women bishops) the mind of the Church of England has not clearly been settled and so views of new diocesans could prove decisive. This is more credibly a significant, even if insufficient, explanatory factor in the recent failures to nominate.
CNC, PLF, Clergy in Same-Sex Marriage and Marriage Doctrine (link to fuller PDF)
Both Carlisle and Ely final CNCs occurred in close proximity to key decisions in relation to PLF and the Synod voting records show both had 5 or more members opposed to those decisions. However, as in relation to claims about women candidates, the wider CNC reality is more complex. Of the six nominations by this CNC, two have not supported the House of Bishops’ direction of travel and two clearly supported it and also called for clergy in same-sex civil marriage as signalled by their support for the November 2023 open letter from 44 bishops.
Interestingly, the two less clearly committed on this question are the two women nominated and this may also be significant. Analysis of the signatories to that letter shows a much higher degree of support among female compared to male bishops especially among non-diocesans (see figures in fuller PDF). It therefore may well be that perceived bias against women candidates is masking or failing to consider the interaction of that debate with the current sexuality debate.
It might also be significant that where the views of nominated candidates are clearly known they represented continuity with the views of their predecessors. We have, in other words, yet to see a clear shift in the balance within the House as a result of CNC decisions. It could be that the failures in Carlisle (previously conservative) and Ely (previously revisionist) are a signal of the difficulty in securing the necessary 2/3 majority for an appointment that represents such a shift.
If—and again so much here is speculation—PLF disagreements are a major factor, then the CNC problems are more like the symptoms pointing to an underlying disease. Previously workable processes no longer working may point to CNC acting like the canary in the coalmine. Perhaps when CNCs repeatedly find that they Could Not Choose a candidate we need to recognise that we are being warned that we are a Church Nearing Collapse.
The problem here, in other words, is wider problems in relation to how the church is handling its disagreements over possible liturgical and doctrinal developments. For example, many believe that the proper Synodical processes in relation to liturgical changes (Canon B2, also requiring two-thirds) are being bypassed. As I commented in a Facebook discussion of the Carlisle failure to nominate:
Unlike with Canon B2 and liturgy there is no equivalent to commendation to bypass the 2/3 requirement here.
We are, it seems, possibly entering a period led by the Archbishops and a majority (but only a small simple majority) of the current bishops in which there may be (1) a degree of “development of doctrine” and/or (2) permission to allow bishops to reach new and different judgments as to what episcopal actions are at variance with the teaching of the Church of England. In such a situation it would appear justifiable for someone on CNC to see it as their responsibility to refuse to vote in support of the nomination of a candidate for diocesan bishop who was known to be committed to changing that teaching and practice.
It is also at least paradoxical to argue that the church’s recent developments in relation to women bishops must be adhered to by all CNC members in their discernment process and voting but its historic doctrine of marriage need not, even must not, be determinative in making judgements about episcopal appointments. On this important question the 2017 Guidelines from the Archbishops raise significant questions (see fuller PDF discussion) in relation to CNC treatment of candidates opposed to church teaching. Perhaps the most stark and relevant concerns the extent to which “it would be for each individual member of the CNC to decide how much weight to attach to” such known views (para 19) or whether, and on what theological basis given the bishop’s calling and promises, it might be true that
the mere fact that a candidate had publicly questioned the Church of England’s teaching on human sexuality, or indeed that of the Anglican Communion as articulated in Lambeth 1:10, or any other significant part of Church teaching, would not be sufficient to raise any issue from this point of view…provided the views they express remain within the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral and demonstrate a serious and thoughtful attempt to engage with Scripture (para 21).
It seems likely there will now be pressure—perhaps from the Archbishops—to review CNC voting processes. Recently considered but rejected proposals, such as open not secret voting within the Commission, and the option to opt out by abstaining (and so reducing the total number of votes), might be put back on the table. There might even be those arguing that the bar needs to be formally lowered to less than two-thirds. These would, however, be widely seen in the context of already deep distrust in relation to LLF as, to reapply Archer’s critique of alleged conservative behaviour, “a grotesque failure of a process taken over by a group…wanting to gerrymander the composition of the House of Bishops”.
Such proposals, like the various CNC questions explored here, bring to the fore for all parts of the church the question of what it means to apply the pastoral principle of “pay attention to power”. It may be that, rather than simply focussing on CNC and its voting, the issues raised by CNC are pointing out to us the need to reflect on relational and power dynamics within LLF/PLF and within CNC processes and what recent events reveal about where we now are as a church.
Rather than rushing to find a procedural fix for CNC—where we are unlikely to find an easy new consensus—we perhaps need instead to step back and ask what God is saying to us at present through the messy life of the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion. We need to consider what CNC’s problems, and different perceptions of them and responses to them, are signalling about our theological disagreements, how we relate to each other, and our wider structures and procedures. What patterns of episcopal selection and ministry do we now need to develop as a church if we are to live well with our deep disagreements? If we do not explore these questions well then we may find ourselves constantly fighting one another and/or creating gridlock within our common life and soon vividly embodying the truth of Jesus’ words in Matthew 12.25:
Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.
