In the room where it happens: transparency in the CofE

Amid all the difficult conversations taking place across the Church of England on sexuality and Living in Love and Faith (LLF), requests for greater transparency abound. We all want to make sure that our views are heard 'in the room where it happens’ – whether that is General Synod, meetings at Lambeth Palace, or residentials in Leicester.

Snippets of information trickle out: who has been invited to what, who was there, what was said or promised. Trust appears to be at an all-time low within our national church – but attempts are being made to rebuild it.

Last week at St Hugh’s, Oxford, in a highly unusual move, a meeting of the House of Bishops of the Church of England was open to the public. The College of Bishops, a much larger group whose membership continues to be a little unclear, were meeting immediately before, but this section of their day wasn’t public. Making the House meeting public meant that the bishops of the College could remain for the shorter debate and the formal vote, while also meaning that some of the public and press were also shepherded into the crowded, glass walled room to listen.

What had made this particular meeting happen? The apparent crisis around the ‘failures to appoint’ not one but two diocesan bishops by the Crown Nominations Committee (CNC) had led 13 bishops to write requesting they ‘consider the current challenges facing the CNC’. It can be difficult to choose a bishop – CNCs are made up of a group of elected ‘central members’ plus diocesan representatives, and both Archbishops (or a bishop they choose to cover for them). Following the failure in July to appoint a Bishop of Ely, the Archbishop of Canterbury put out a press statement that said '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.'

By September, a paper had been put together and published, and a meeting date set. The paper was formally from the Bishop of London, in her capacity as the Chair of the Advisory Group for Appointments and Vocations. Another ‘room where it happens’? Maybe. But with a paper put together that quickly it is likely significant staff support was needed – perhaps from the mysterious ‘Office of the Archbishops’?

Neither the motion nor the accompanying paper mentioned LLF. But the paper noted that ‘it is widely considered that National Church politics may be impacting CNC processes’ as well as stating that the perceived fear across all traditions in the Church was that the bishop-picking process was ‘one of pre-judgements, tribalism or politics’. Candidates, the paper said, have been refusing to have their name added to the longlist of possible appointments, and some have openly questioned the integrity of the process. Given the confidentiality that so carefully shrouds the CNC processes, one might wonder what has moved them from speculation to a more certain fear.

At the start of the meeting, the Bishop of London shared a message from the Archbishops’ Appointments Secretary, Stephen Knott, who feels that what is happening is ‘thwarting the mission of the church’. He is apparently routinely asked by candidates ‘will this be a fair process for me as x or as y?.... Can you assure me that this is really a process of discernment?’. The Bishop of London replied, that ‘on the latter, Stephen has said that, to be honest, what he says is ‘I hope and pray that it is, but my fear is that it is not’. In the room with candidates speaking to him in private, instead of expressing confidence in the process that he leads on managing, the Archbishops' Appointments Secretary instead expresses doubts in it. 

Perhaps his honesty is to be admired. But this did set the context for the number of bishops who subsequently stood and spoke of the ‘trauma’ of being involved in this appointments process, either as a candidate or as a part of the CNC itself. It was noted this was particularly so when at the end of the trauma it all seemed to come to naught as no one was actually appointed. Pointless pain is especially hard to endure.

Discernment or something else?

So, is it discernment, what happens in these rooms, in this process? Does the failure to appoint twice mean that discernment has been taken over by something more sinister? The Bishop of London was clear that ‘the discernment might have been right not to fill the See’. But she also noted in the debate that there were concerns about ‘a lack of diversity on the CNC, limited by gender, race and theology’. Bishop Ruth Worsley said in a passionate speech that ‘we don't even allow for those voices to be heard within the walls of our church sometimes’. The Bishop of Rochester observed the ‘broader concern about the under-representation of women and people of GMH heritage among diocesan bishops’ while the Bishop of Derby felt there was ‘an unconscious bias’ around women. Yet Annex 1 of the paper shows that 33% of nominations by this CNC have been women compared to 31% of the previous CNC (and also that 17% are UK Minority Ethnic/Global Majority Heritage compared to 13% of the previous CNC).

Has the system broken? Proposals for change have come, arguably without proper analysis of what has become so problematic. Some bishops seemed only too aware of the risks to acting in haste, then repenting at leisure. The Bishop of Bath and Wells encouraged other bishops to take time, to be wary of the proposals for change, as while the failure to appoint twice was a symptom, the exact cause of it is unclear and could be causal or associative. An unsuccessful amendment from the Bishop of Rochester tried valiantly to ensure that next steps would include not only the voices of the CNC themselves, but also insights of two recent General Synod papers.

Meanwhile, a number of the central CNC members themselves sat at the back of the busy room, listening intently whilst being accused of ‘lobbying, breaching all kinds of boundaries’ by various bishops. No right of reply was available. This is one part of the Church of England where lived experience wasn’t considered, and the adage ‘nothing about us without us’ apparently did not apply. The current CNC central members were elected by the General Synod in July 2022, and shifted the balance of the CNC to a more conservative stance than had been seen previously. Just over 24 months later here we are. Yet another fine (Anglican) mess, alongside LLF?

Linked to LLF?

Or another fine mess because of LLF? It may not have been in the agenda nor the paper, but LLF was mentioned in the debate in Oxford by several bishops. The Bishop of Leicester was firm that LLF was ‘at the centre of this’ and acknowledged it was going to be ‘a condition that we have to live with as a church’ and thus a longer-term review was needed. What was on the table was seen by some to be something of an episcopal power grab.

While the Archbishop of Canterbury didn’t speak during the debate, the Archbishop of York did. He spoke of wanting to be very clear on how much wisdom he thinks there is in Scripture. Specifically, the wisdom of drawing lots. He reminded the bishops of a popular joke shared by the CNC that bishops could or should be chosen as leaders were in the Bible – by drawing lots. He went on: ‘we need someone to take on this apostolic role who has a deep, deep knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and is an apostolic witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's what we're looking for’. I concede that I can think of far worse summaries for what the church might be looking for in its leaders. Saul was chosen to be king by lot, and it was how Matthais was chosen to replace Judas. And yet, it doesn’t seem to be wise to use what were primarily Old Testament methods. After Acts 1, and post-Pentecost in particularly, there is no record of leaders being done by drawing lots.

The Archbishop of York also said that prior to the main CNC work, there is a ‘very, very, very thorough process of discernment that leads up to a point where there is a shortlist, and that process involves real scrutiny on a whole range of things’. He went on to say ‘if we did draw lots at this point [the point of the CNC meeting] we wouldn't make a bad decision’. So it appears the CNC process is no longer seen to be discernment, but the discernment has already been done? By whom, and looking at what criteria? Again, who is in the room when this happens? If the important work has been done by the time the CNC are included, what is the Synod prayerfully electing them for?

So what have the bishops decided will happen next? They passed a motion (by 27 votes to nine) for the proposals, which included; removing the requirement for the CNC to vote by secret ballot; reducing the majority needed for a nomination of a name to go forward for appointment; giving the Presiding Archbishop an additional vote in a deadlock scenario; and to require the resignation of the Central CNC members should they fail to make a nomination on three occasions. Peter could deny Jesus three times and yet become the rock on which Christ built His church, but for the CNC three strikes will mean you are out, whatever your intentions or motivation.

Andrew Goddard described what has been passed by the bishops as ‘another badly-managed and ill-conceived initiative that will only deepen our divisions, diminish trust and respect’. Much depends on who is in the room where the decisions happen – if only we knew which room that was.