This article looks at who will be choosing the next Archbishop and how they get a seat on the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC). Although only one of the 17 names has been officially announced, another 5 can be identified. There are five different categories with different processes of selection in each and these are examined in turn before a conclusion notes some of the emerging features of the group of 17.
After exploring the choice of the Chair, two episcopal members, and the six central members, major questions are raised about the processes within Canterbury Diocese which will lead to the election of 3 CNC members. These relate to serious failures in, and a lack of public clarity and accountability for, the diocese’s Vacancy in See Committee (ViSC) and the implications of using the new Regulation concerning the running of the ViSC passed at the recent General Synod.
Eight questions are then raised to try to shed more light on how the 5 representatives of the wider Anglican Communion who will serve on the CNC have been chosen.
A longer version with further details and links is available as a PDF here.
The failure of the House of Bishops’ attempt to get Synodical support for proposed alterations to the decision-making processes of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) means that how the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen remains unchanged. The nominee will still need to secure, in a secret ballot, the support of at least two-thirds of the 17 voting members of the Commission (ie 12 votes) with every member only having one vote.
There is, however, still much unknown as to who will do the choosing with only 6 names currently being clear from the 5 different constituent groupings that will comprise the CNC. There is even less clarity as to how two of these groupings – the 3 local representatives from Canterbury Diocese and the 5 representatives from the wider Anglican Communion – have been or will be constituted.
Chair of the Commission
The only name officially announced (and so listed on the relevant new web page about the membership) is Lord (Jonathan) Evans, a cross-bench peer and former Director General of MI5 who previously served as Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life from 2018 to 2023. His appointment was made public on 16th December 2024 just over a month after Justin Welby’s resignation was announced on 12th November and within a fortnight of it being announced (on 4th December) that he would step down on 6th January 2025.
Two Church of England Episcopal Members
It appears that the Archbishop of York intends to take his seat on the Canterbury CNC rather than being considered by it as a possible candidate. There is currently an election under way for the other episcopal member. Nominations have just closed with a bishop whose see is in the Province of Canterbury and any retired bishop resident in the Province being eligible to stand. The whole House of Bishops (currently I believe 45 members) will then select a candidate with votes closing on 17th March and the count on the following day. It is unclear whether the names of candidates, their supporters and statements, and the voting figures will be released publicly at any stage of this process or whether, as stated in the press release about the process, all that will happen publicly is that “the episcopal member of the CNC for the See of Canterbury will be announced alongside the rest of the membership as soon as possible” after the count.
Six Central Members
Although not announced, it appears highly likely that 3 of the central members will be those who were elected by General Synod as part of a pair but whose pair is no longer a member of General Synod and so no longer serving on any CNCs. These 3 are:
- Ms Christina Baron (Bath & Wells)
- Mr Clive Scowen (London)
- The Revd Lis Goddard* (London)
The news yesterday that The Revd Canon Andrew Cornes is one of the ten clergy who “the National Safeguarding Team will now seek to bring disciplinary proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure against” in relation to the Makin Review and their knowledge about John Smyth means that
- The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) will also serve on the Canterbury CNC.
The other 2 will be one of the members of the other 2 elected pairs:
- Miss Debbie Buggs (London) and Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford)
- The Revd Claire Lording (Worcester) and The Revd Joanna Stobart (Bath & Wells)
The six central members will therefore comprise four women (two clergy and two lay) and two men (one clergy and one lay). If the new Regulations relating to the choice of CNC reps from Canterbury are implemented (see below) then there will, unprecedently, be no male priest from the province involved in selecting the Archbishop and, if a woman bishop is elected by the House, no ordained male at all from the province.
In addition, 5 of the 6 of the central members will be from Canterbury province (meaning only two representatives from York as the CNC Chair is also from the southern province). There will be 2 and possibly 3 (the same number as from Canterbury) members from London diocese and possibly 2 from Bath & Wells, thus potentially 5 of the 6 coming from just two dioceses. Broadly speaking 4 of the 6 are seen as theologically “conservative” (for example, they have opposed PLF).
The processes leading to the appointment of the other 8 members of the Commission are much less transparent and raise a number of serious concerns. Both of these constituencies are either new or significantly altered from the previous process for electing an Archbishop. This is because changes introduced in 2022 reduced the number of Canterbury representatives from the usual six to just three members and replaced a single Primate from the Anglican Communion with five representatives of the churches of the Anglican Communion.
Three Canterbury Members
As with all CNCs, these diocesan or local members are “elected by and from the Vacancy in See Committee” of the Diocese (SO 137(1)(d)). It is here that there appears to have been, and still remains, some considerable confusion and serious questions which need answering with no less than 3 different Vacancy in See Committees (ViSC) being in existence in the diocese since the vacancy was announced but with all of them potentially not compliant with the Regulation.
The 2021–2024 ViSC
A ViSC had been elected to serve until the end of 2024 and its membership was altered with the addition of 4 members nominated by the Archbishops’ Council in early December once there was known to be a vacancy (see the list of members as of 12th March and of 9th December).
What is particularly noteworthy about both these lists is the very high number of vacant seats. Two the six elected clergy seats and a majority (7) of the twelve elected lay seats were vacant both in March and in December. The number of vacancies (half the 18 elected members) signals a significant failure in due process as the Regulation relating to ViSC has provisions relating to filling vacancies that arise. This includes that they “must be filled within six months of the vacancy occurring” (Para 7(1)) and so these places should have been filled between becoming vacant (March 2024 or, more likely, some time before then) and the vacancy occurring in November. This would have entailed “a further election by the house of clergy and the house of laity of the diocesan synod, the members of each of which together constitute a single electorate” (Para 7(2)).
Despite it being known that the Archbishop was approaching his retirement (and consideration being given to adding nominated members) it appears no attention was given to fill these vacancies and follow the democratic process. The failure here meant that the ViSC in place when there was a vacancy announced would have had only 22 of its 31 members (35 if potential 4 nominated members included) and less than half its number of elected lay members so that the elected members were not 12 laity and 6 clergy as required but only 5 laity and 4 clergy, a significant shift in the balance between the two Houses.
Once the Archbishop announced his resignation there could not be changes made to elected members as “if a vacancy of the bishopric is announced before the vacancy on the Committee has been filled, the vacancy on the Committee…is to remain unfilled until the Committee has completed its consideration of the vacancy of the bishopric” (Para 7(3)). Despite this moratorium on changing the composition of the ViSC’s elected members, there was, following the vacancy being announced, the addition of 4 nominated members to the ViSC. It is not clear on what basis they were selected by whom (all were female laity from the Archdeaconries with vacancies among elected members but none of them stood for the 2025-2027 ViSC). The proportion of ex officio to elected was already 13 to 9 rather than 13 to 18 (as it should have been), another important imbalance, and with the addition of 4 nominated members the ViSC was only 1/3 elected rather than the majority elected that it should have been (even with nominated members included).
It seems clear that this ViSC, in place at the time of Archbishop Justin’s resignation being announced, should have been the body working on the vacancy given the Regulation (para 9(3), para 11 and para 12(2)) and practice in other dioceses and it would appear that this ViSC indeed met toward the end of last year (reportedly chaired by the Dean) and began its work. The Archbishops’ Appointment Secretary, Stephen Knott, informed Synod members on 20th January that “the Canterbury Diocese ‘Vacancy in See’ process commenced in December”.
The 2025–2027 ViSC
A new ViSC for 2025–2027 was also elected around this time (its membership is given here and there remain 6 lay and 1 clergy elected seats vacant and the 4 laywomen nominated to the old ViSC did not stand for election to it).
A newly elected ViSC for Canterbury
It has, however, recently become clear that, for some publicly unstated reason, neither the newly elected ViSC for 2025-2027, nor that in place when the vacancy was announced that would usually consider any vacancy that arose in 2021–2024, is being used. Instead, a totally new election is underway.
The diocesan web page on the ViSC (on a page updated on 14th February) gives a description of the new election process now underway and provides a link to the ViSC elected for 2025–2027. The web page reads:
Elections to the Vacancy in See Committee
Please note, this election is for the Committee which is involved in the selection of the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury only. The Committee for the 2025-2027 triennium has already been elected.
It appears that this change in plan only happened in late January given the letter to General Synod members of 20th January claiming that the process had already commenced in December. Those elected will it seems simply serve for the imminent CNC and then step back to be replaced by those originally elected for 2025-2027 (who would therefore serve if there was a vacancy in Dover during that period).
I understand that objections were raised as to the process by which the 2021-2024 ViSC elected members were originally chosen. This process was found to be incompatible with the Regulation at the time as it was stated that only members of Diocesan Synod were eligible to be elected to the ViSC. Indeed, all Canterbury ViSC elections since 2009 were similarly flawed, including therefore the ViSC relating to Justin Welby’s appointment. This would be a further process failure to add to that of not replacing casual vacancies. However, the Regulation states that “The proceedings of the Vacancy in See Committee of a diocese are not invalidated by a vacancy in the membership of the Committee or a defect in the qualification, election or appointment of any of its members” (para 17) so this problem would not seem to invalidate any proceedings of the 2021-2024 ViSC and therefore a new election does not appear to be required by the Regulation.
In addition, the election for the 2025-2027 ViSC apparently took place on the understanding that it would not be the body overseeing the current vacancy making it impossible to use that ViSC.
It is not clear on what authority this newly elected ViSC will be the key body in electing 3 members of the CNC although the Regulation does state that “where difficulties arise” the Archbishop (clearly here it would have to be the Archbishop of York) may “give whatever directions the archbishop considers appropriate for removing those difficulties” (para 16(1)(b)).
The process of this new election is now set out as follows:
The nomination process for the Vacancy in See Committee commenced on Monday 10 February and has been extended to conclude at 12 noon on Friday 28 February 2025. The elections will now run from Monday 10 March through to 12 noon on Monday 24 March followed by the vote count on Tuesday 25 March.
Originally (the current page with these new details was updated at 4:31PM on 21st February) the closing date was Monday 24th February with the elections running from Monday 3rd March through to Monday 17th March with the vote count on Tuesday 18th March. It is not clear who determined the need for or the extent of these date changes after the process had begun. Oxford diocese has, interestingly, done the same but given a two week not simply a four day extension in its ViSC nomination timescale.
A New Regulation for the New ViSC?
The other change to the webpage made on the 21st February appears to be the addition of a paragraph which states
During the recent General Synod sessions, the Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2025 was approved and ratified. This Regulation makes important changes to the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation 2024 which is the legislation governing elections, nominations and the proceedings of Diocesan Vacancy in See committees.
This suggests the new Regulation is now being used (for the first time) to elect the ViSC and also for its election of the 3 CNC members. It needs to be recognised, however, that the Regulation both in its earlier form (which it appears was disregarded in a number of ways by Canterbury Diocese in relation to the original 2021-24 ViSC) and the new form does not have the legal force of a Measure or a Canon. It is simply an Act of Synod. This, like the earlier Acts of Convocation it effectively replaced, has ‘great moral force, as the considered judgment of the highest and ancient synod of the province’, but it does not create legally enforceable rights or duties.
Using the new Regulation would raise yet a further set of questions about the Canterbury process.
Firstly, the Regulation places new restrictions on who can be elected to the ViSC based on preventing two members sharing a “relevant connection” with the same worshipping community. This has the effect that anyone with such a “relevant connection” to any of the 13 ex officio members is, if the amended Regulation is being applied, since 14th February no longer eligible to stand for the ViSC and thus their nomination is likely to be declared null and void, perhaps even if submitted prior to the new Regulation taking effect.
Secondly, this means that the eligibility for nomination changed four days after nominations opened but this change is not clearly stated either on the website or the nomination form (which also continues to have the original closing date on it rather than the new one). Making such a change mid-process and particularly not then clearly announcing the nature of it raises important procedural concerns.
Thirdly, similar restrictions have been introduced to prevent elected CNC representatives having a “relevant connection” with each other. As with the restriction in electing to the ViSC and the further change below it is not clear how this would be implemented within the STV system of voting.
Fourthly, a new rule requires those elected by the ViSC to include (if nominations make this possible) the election of one clergywoman and one lay woman. Because, uniquely, Canterbury is only electing 3 members, when this new rule combines with the rule that at least half of CNC members must be lay, this means that no male clergyperson elected to the ViSC is now eligible to serve on the CNC. Although the rules have in the past excluded episcopal ViSC members from standing this is a major new, much more wide-ranging, discriminatory limitation on whom the ViSC can elect to represent them on CNC.
None of these new regulations were in force when the vacancy was announced or when the original ViSC began its work or when the nomination process for the current ViSC election began. There is also no clear explanation of these changes on the website relating to the ViSC election.
Read it all in Psephizo
