After months of speculation, the Church of England has finally appointed a new Archbishop of Canterbury. The first woman in the post, she is the current Bishop of London and as such has already played a senior role in the Church for several years.
Her theological training and ministerial experience are minimal. She was enrolled on a local ordination course rather than at a theological college and served a couple of part-time curacies before being very briefly rector of a parish church. She was soon promoted to the episcopate as suffragan bishop of Crediton, but her main achievement appears to be that she was a competent administrator in the National Health Service. Is a track record like that promising for a future Archbishop of Canterbury?
The short answer must be no.
Undertrained and inexperienced, with a proper job somewhere else, the only reason she became a bishop is that she was a woman when women were wanted and in short supply. A man in her position would never have been considered. General awareness of that will make her task exceptionally difficult. Everybody in the Church of England will be polite to her, but few will listen to whatever she has to say.
In her first address after the announcement of her appointment, she talked about the worldwide Anglican Communion, but if she imagines that she can do anything to heal the rifts of the past twenty years she will be gravely disappointed. Rightly or wrongly, she simply will not be taken seriously by men who shepherd churches with thousands and even millions of adherents. This is not to deny her many personal qualities, but for someone elected to her position, more than that is needed. It is safe to say that under her leadership, Canterbury will not recover the place it once occupied in the Anglican world.
Theologically, it is hard to say what her beliefs are. Her Jesus is a great man who inspires hope in others, but is he the Saviour of a sinful and dying world? To be fair, she did mention that he conquered sin and death, but she did not dwell on the subject or make it central to her message. Instead, she concentrated heavily on the question of safeguarding - a controversial subject that a number of bishops have not handled well. Even some neutral observers have pointed out that she did not grapple adequately with the subject during her time in London, which does not bode well for her future in Canterbury.
Interestingly though, she said nothing about the "Living in Love and Faith" process, which includes approval of the blessing of same-sex marriages and which she is known to have supported. Perhaps she realises that this is a non-starter that has alienated large numbers of people and will distance herself from it, but we shall have to wait and see about that.
In sum, it is hard to think of anything that she has achieved during her seven years in London, and she seems unlikely to do much in her new and enhanced role. She is 63 now and will retire at 70, so we can expect seven more equally lean years ahead.
The best we can hope for is that evangelicals (in particular) will be left alone to get on with the mission of Christ, and that when the See of Canterbury becomes vacant again, a more promising candidate may be found.
Read more
- New Archbishop poses challenge for evangelicals - a news summary of reactions from evangelicals including Gafcon, Church Society, CEEC, Affinity and others, plus a brief survey of what Sarah Mullally does (or does not) seem to believe
- Living in Love and Faith, safeguarding & complementarianism - comment from George Crowder
- Sarah Mullally: A calm voice & firm hand, but not an evangelical - comment from Rebecca Chapman
- Those who teach 'will be judged more strictly' - comment from Niv Lobo, Senior Associate Minister at Christ Church, Cambridge
Donald Trump – victim and martyr?
It is not every day that one gets to be an eye-witness of an assassination attempt, but that is what …