Do we actually need a new Archbishop of Canterbury?
Here's a tale of two versions of the Church of England. This past week, I've been talking to some of the churchwardens, parochial church council secretaries and treasurers, curates and vicars, who not only put on services and keep food banks and lunch clubs going, but are responsible for repairing the roofs and rebuilding the buttresses.
And then there's the other Church of England – the one that is represented by its high-ups, that I usually come into contact with at this time of year when the Archbishop of Canterbury hosts his summer party at his Lambeth Palace home.
But this year, there is no clinking of glasses and the Archbishop's apartment lies empty. Justin Welby, who dramatically resigned in November, days after a report into a prolific child abuser associated with the Church of England, finally moved out earlier this summer.
If that departure took a long time, then finding his replacement is taking even longer, and is now predicted to last until the end of the year – 12 months on from his resignation. As my conversations with the people who attend and run Anglican churches highlighted, for them it is business as usual – regardless of Welby quitting just before Christmas.
Meanwhile, Stephen Cottrell, who has the CofE's number two job as Archbishop of York, can sign off any urgent institutional business, while he offers spiritual leadership by way of his current tour of the north, talking about the Lord's Prayer.
So, if the Church of England has carried on regardless, might it not just give up on the protracted process of finding a replacement for Welby? Well, it might not affect Matins in Maidstone or Evensong in Evesham, but it's a certainly a problem for the established Anglican Church.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is always one of the 26 Anglican bishops in the House of Lords, and Welby's speeches were frequently reported on (including his final one, viewed as tone-deaf). Now there's a void.
Then there's the order of precedence; the Archbishop of Canterbury is always first after the Royal Family in this country, so when Donald Trump makes his state visit to Britain in the autumn, there will be an ecclesiastical-shaped hole at the state banquet (unless Cottrell returns from his tour of the north to play stand-in).
Welby's most prominent moment, of course, as part of Establishment Britain, came with his crowning of the King at the Coronation. But there's more to the relationship than that. Meetings may not be as frequent as the weekly audience of the prime minister, but the private talks between the archbishop and the regal Supreme Governor of the Church of England do happen.
It is this aspect of the Church of England – being the established church – that is causing the problem with finding a successor to Welby. A 20-strong Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) headed by former MI5 boss Lord Jonathan Evans with representatives of the Church of England and the Crown is wading through paperwork, studying comments sent in by the public and assessing candidates.
A quarter of the CNC represents the global Anglican Communion. One can imagine the hours of discussion about hot-button topics such as same-sex blessings and whether the Archbishop might be a woman this time. And after that, the chosen name must be submitted to the prime minister and approved by the King.
There is, of course, a simpler way of choosing a church leader. I know, as a Roman Catholic, that I will seem parti-pris, and this will send Henry VIII spinning his grave (no bad thing), but the Vatican knows how to make people focus on the task in hand.
So, Church of England: stick all the members of the CNC in a locked room and only let them out when they've made a decision. It worked for Rome. The conclave took just two days to elect Pope Leo XIV.
Why not have an Anglican conclave, put everyone out of their misery and send up some white smoke?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Critics warn Sir Keir's screeching welfare U-turn will now result in a 'two-tier' benefits system and a £3billion tax bombshell to pay for it
Sir Keir Starmer 's benefits climbdown will create a 'two-tier' benefits system with families facing a £3billion tax bombshell to pay for it, critics warned last night. And that will be on top of the £1.25billion bill caused by the Prime Minister's screeching U-turn over winter fuel payments for pensioners. Experts warned the £4.25billion black hole in the public finances caused by the backsliding will probably force Chancellor Rachel Reeves to plug it with more tax rises in her autumn Budget. The Prime Minister was humiliatingly forced to hand Labour 's welfare rebels the concessions in a bid to avoid defeat in a crunch vote on benefits cuts on Tuesday. The compromise deal last night looked like it had peeled off enough of the 126 rebels to pass the vote. However, as many as 50 were still threatening to rebel unless the vote was pulled. The reforms had originally been forecast to save the Government £5billion a year by the end of the Parliament. Charity bosses and Labour MPs still planning to rebel also warned the new proposals would create a 'two-tier' benefits system because existing Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants will keep their current level of disability payments. But new claimants after November 2026, when the changes are scheduled to kick in, would be entitled to as much as £4,000 a year less on average, even if they suffered from the same condition which meant they couldn't work. Before the U-turn, both existing and future claimants were facing stricter eligibility conditions for the daily living component of PIP, a working-age benefit for those whose health condition increases their living costs. The concessions on PIP alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment. Meanwhile, existing claimants of the universal credit (UC) health element, paid to those with a condition which stops them working, will have their payments protected in real terms. However, new claimants will see it halved and frozen. According to calculations by the Resolution Foundation think tank, the PIP and UC reforms will cost £1.5billion each. Sir Keir yesterday branded his own climbdown 'common sense' and refused to rule out tax increases to pay for it in an interview. During a visit to RAF Valley in Wales, he said how the Government intended to pay for it would be revealed in the autumn Budget, adding: 'The changes still mean we can deliver the reforms that we need and that's very important because the system needs to be a system that is fit for the future. 'All colleagues are signed up to that, but having listened, we've made the adjustments. The funding will be set out in the Budget in the usual way.' Yesterday's climbdown is hugely embarrassing for Sir Keir as it highlights the scale to which he failed to read his MPs' mood over the proposed cuts, with rebels having spoken out for months. Care minister Stephen Kinnock dismissed criticism that the Government was in chaos and that Sir Keir was not 'competent', insisting that the process had been 'positive and constructive' and that the PM was someone who 'gets stuck into fixing problems'. Care minister Stephen Kinnock (pictured) dismissed criticism that the Government was in chaos and that Sir Keir was not 'competent', insisting that the process had been 'positive and constructive' and that the PM was someone who 'gets stuck into fixing problems' But Kemi Badenoch said the debacle left benefits claimants facing 'the worst of all worlds'. Speaking to reporters on a visit to North West Essex, the Tory leader said: 'I think we're seeing a government that is floundering, a government that is no longer in control despite having a huge majority. I don't see how they're going to be able to deliver any of the things they promised if they can't do something as basic as reducing an increase in spending. 'It's a real shame because what they're doing now with this U-turn is creating a two-tier system... this is the worst of all worlds.' Arch rebel Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, said: 'These revised proposals are nowhere near good enough, and frankly, are just not well thought through. It would create a two-tier system in both PIP and the Universal Credit health element based on when somebody became disabled.' Sir Mel Stride, the Shadow Chancellor, said: 'Labour promised not to raise taxes on working people, and their Jobs Tax has led to rising unemployment and growth being halved. Now the Government has been unable to rule out that taxes will go up this autumn in order to pay for Keir Starmer's latest U-turns.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Justin Welby fails to surprise with no hope for Pope
Justin Welby may have said that his ousting as Archbishop of Canterbury was based on a flawed report, but he is courting less controversy by asserting that he is unlikely to become Pope. Asked what his papal name would be, he opted for either Hadrian or Francis, but was keen to stress that a Welby papacy would be unlikely. 'I have had six children, therefore there is some evidence that I've not been entirely celibate,' he said, adding that he was also a 'lousy theologian'. Still, this needn't rule him out as a Pope, if the Borgias were anything to go by. Welby remarked: 'It was a Borgia who said, 'Since God has given us the papacy, we may as well enjoy it'. ' Glastonbury brings together the revolutionaries and the posh, and this year is throwing together particularly strange bedfellows. The other night, the same backstage VIP bar was frequented by the controversial band Kneecap and the uncontroversial Samantha Cameron. It's not like they have nothing in common, though. For instance, as she was a PM's wife, both have benefited from government money. Jeffrey Archer's success is not as impressive as it sounds. The former Tory MP's first novel, Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less, is still topping bestsellers' lists after racking up 25,000 sales last month, but he points out that this is worldwide and it's not all that impressive when you divide it by 151 countries. 'I got a call from Iceland saying your latest book is number one in the bestsellers' list,' he tells the Rosebud podcast. Archer, right, was filled with pride, until he asked how many copies had taken him to this giddy height. The answer was 83. Much excitement on the left this week about the potential for a new Jeremy Corbyn-led party. Many are saying that polls have shown it would get 10 per cent of the vote, but the pollster Joe Twyman offers a note of caution. 'May I gently suggest that 'would' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here,' he said. 'I say that as the official pollster for Change UK.' It is official — politicians don't talk like humans. A study to be published in Comparative Political Studies has found that politicians' speeches become more interminable as soon as they are elected. The study looked at 1.5 million extracts from speeches by Danish parliamentarians across a quarter of a century from 1997. It found that the speeches became less readable after the speaker was elected but this reverted as soon as their career ended. It's cited by the political scientist Philip Cowley in his latest for The House. 'You campaign in poetry, govern in prose,' he says, 'but even the prose suffers when in office.' With books like his new history of St Petersburg, the author Sinclair McKay has become an adept copy editor, but he learnt the craft the hard way. He used to be a diarist and tells me he got into terrible trouble when he wrote a piece about the political salon host Lady Carla Powell. She was furious about one word. He admits it was probably an error to call her 'fawnlike' in the first place, but what was worse was that he also got the third letter wrong and had to explain to Powell that he hadn't meant to suggest she was half-man, half-goat.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Officially defining Islamophobia endangers freedom of speech
Professor Steven Greer worked at Bristol University for 36 years as an expert in human rights law before his career was ruined. The 68-year-old faced a false accusation in 2020 from the university's Islamic Society alleging he had made Islamophobic remarks. The complainant had not attended Mr Greer's teaching module, yet alleged he had made discriminatory remarks. In reality the lecturer had merely spoken of the Islamist attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine. The complaint against Mr Greer went nowhere, until Bristol's Islamic Society launched a social media campaign against the lecturer. It falsely claimed he had mocked Islam and the Quran. A pile-on ensued with a petition calling for his sacking garnering 4,000 signatures. Mr Greer felt so intimidated by the online anger that he went into hiding, venturing out only in disguise. He sincerely believed his life was in danger. • Islamophobia row academic: I wore a disguise. Better ridiculous than dead Bristol University initiated an inquiry and, five months later, he was exonerated after an independent assessor from another department concluded it was a storm over nothing. The lecturer went on sick leave and has since retired but, rightly, he is not letting the matter rest. In an interview with this newspaper today, he accuses his former employer of failing to protect him. By scrapping Mr Greer's module on 'Islam, China and the Far East' following its inquiry, Bristol University has demonstrated institutional cowardice, as well as humiliating Mr Greer. Alas, there is a precedent here. Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at Sussex University, was driven out for her views on sex and gender. Eventually an investigation by the Office for Students led to Sussex being fined £585,000 for its failure to protect freedom of speech. If the OfS is to fulfil its duties as a protector of freedom of speech on campuses, it must urgently investigate whether or not Bristol offered Mr Greer appropriate protection. Mr Greer's case is instructive as the government considers a formal definition of Islamophobia. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, instigated a working group earlier this year following a rise in reports of anti-Muslim hatred. The working group claimed that any definition 'must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression'. Yet the mere instance of a definition creates a bar for free speech to be measured by, especially if a commissar is created to adjudicate on it. Although the group has pledged to engage 'widely', there are concerns about its findings becoming a foregone conclusion. According to the Policy Exchange think tank, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, which promotes its own definition of Islamophobia, has claimed that stating that those involved in grooming gangs were predominantly of Pakistani origin is Islamophobic. Yet that is exactly what Baroness Casey of Blackstock concluded in her recent report into such gangs. Equally troubling is the fact that the working group, led by Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, has endorsed the parliamentary group's work. Given the ongoing debate on grooming gangs, with a national inquiry due, the government would be wise to halt its work on an Islamophobia definition. The danger to free speech is too great, as is the danger of more cases arising like that of Mr Greer. Strong laws against racial hatred already exist. There is no need for more.
