A report to the Most Revd and Rt Hon. Dr George Carey
by the Review Team chaired by
the Rt Hon. the Lord Hurd of Westwell CH CBEpublished 2001
2 Overview: the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury
5 Metropolitan for the Southern Province
10 Organization of support at Lambeth Palace
11 Final words
The opportunity to serve as Archbishop of Canterbury is both deeply rewarding and challenging. One of my priorities has been to try to ensure that the Church and Communion I lead are as effective and responsive as they can be on behalf of those they seek to serve. The development of the office and role of the Archbishop of Canterbury is an important part of that commitment.
The range of archiepiscopal involvement and responsibility has widened greatly in recent years, especially with regard to the Anglican Communion and new inter-faith initiatives. Yet the last study of the office of Archbishop of Canterbury was in the time of Donald Coggan three decades ago.
It seemed to me both timely and desirable to take a fresh look at the demands and expectations of the office. That is why I commissioned this review, which has been led so ably by Lord Hurd of Westwell.
I am immensely grateful to him and to his colleagues on the Review Team for their time, energy and insight, as well as to all those who have assisted them in this considerable undertaking.
I am certain that their work will prove an important contribution to promoting the continuing and positive evolution of the See of Canterbury and its service of the Gospel of Christ.
+ George Cantuar:
Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of Canterbury appointed us in March 2000 with the following Terms of Reference:
To examine the present responsibilities of the See of Canterbury;
To reflect upon the continuing growth and evolution of the office and role of Archbishop;
To consider possible future developments;
To make recommendations in the light of these considerations concerning the office and its resources in order to ensure that it may continue to be discharged effectively.
The members of our Group are listed at Appendix A.
We quickly came to understand the reasoning behind the decision of the Archbishop to set up this Review. In a later section we discuss how the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury has changed, both in England and overseas. In England, at least, the extent of this change is not yet understood; nor are the strains and pressures on the office which flow from the increase in the workload. The overwhelming thrust of the evidence given to us is that the present Archbishop is carrying out his role effectively with notable courage and wisdom. But if the task of Archbishop Carey and his successors is to be carried out in the best possible way, then changes in the workload need be to reflected in the way in which that work is performed.
The point was made most clearly when we asked the Archbishop as our first witness to suppose that we had somehow managed to provide him with an eighth day in each week. We asked how he would use that eighth day. Archbishop Carey replied that he would not fill the extra day with new diary engagements; instead he would use it for study, reading, discussion and prayer in preparation for the rest of the week, since under present arrangements it was these activities for which he badly needed more time.
We would like to make a few preliminary points before reaching the substance of our Report.
In what follows we spend some time on matters of organization. We see spiritual merit in administrative effectiveness. The Church of England and the Anglican Communion are a broad church, a fact which places great demands on efficiency and makes administrative coherence a priority. This is particularly true because the resources available to the Church of England and the Anglican Communion are strictly limited. There is no point in our putting forward grand ideas for reform which could not conceivably be financed.
Nevertheless, although we are overwhelmingly a lay group, we do not look upon the role of the Archbishop as primarily managerial. Perhaps because we are mainly a lay group, some of those who have helped us were evidently afraid that we would see it as our main task to create a more efficient Chief Executive. On the contrary, we see the Archbishop of Canterbury as essentially a pastor. At a time of great materialism the need for spiritual leadership is widely felt. We look for ways of enabling him to hack his way through the thickets of everyday work in order to sustain this spiritual leadership. If that is right, then the key to success cannot be the multiplication of bureaucracy at the centre, but rather the delegation of present everyday tasks to those qualified to perform them. The Archbishop of Canterbury should concentrate on doing those things that he alone can best do.
As we see it, delegation is in no way improper. Indeed, it is highly desirable if the Archbishop is to be able to prioritize effectively. Delegation also enhances the effectiveness of the Archbishop’s ministry because, through delegation, he empowers others. The delegation must be explicit, real and regularly reviewed, so that those to whom delegation is made can be held to proper account.
As can be seen above, our Terms of Reference are in one sense limited. We have not been concerned with the issues that today concern and sometimes divide the Church, for example the ordination of women, or Christian doctrine on sexual and social matters. We have not been authorized to examine the position of the Church of England as the established church in this country. We were not asked for our views on the governance of the Church of England, or on the way in which the Anglican Communion should be organized. Nevertheless in practice we have found that we have to deal with some of these matters, because they all have consequences for the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Our Report would be useless if we simply tiptoed round the difficulties. We have tried to be bold but not rash, and hope that our boldness will be forgiven when we stray beyond mechanical questions of organization.
The Church of England and the Anglican Communion are steadily evolving. They look quite different in 2001 from their appearance in 1901, and a hundred years from now they will be quite different again. It would, therefore, be an obvious mistake to try to fashion some set of inflexible rules as to what the Archbishop of Canterbury should do and how he should do it. Change will depend to some extent on the flow of events outside the Church. To some extent it will be shaped by the character and talents of each Archbishop. We have tried to remind ourselves at each stage that we are dealing with the work of an individual and that each individual will have his own aptitudes and preferences. A set of prescriptions organized for one Archbishop might be found intolerably constraining by his successor. There must be a place for the exercise of personal gifts and interests.
From the beginning we sought to engage as wide a range of opinion throughout the whole of the Anglican Communion as we could. On behalf of the Review, I wrote to all of the Primates and to all diocesan bishops in England, in all cases encouraging local initiative to arrange discussion and put forward views. Newspapers in England carried notices of the Review and invitations to contribute views. I also appeared on the BBC Radio Today programme with the same message. To help focus thinking, we made a consultation note available explaining our terms of reference and indicating on what topics we would find responses particularly valuable. Responses were requested for no later than the end of October 2000.
In this first phase we visited Canterbury and York to engage with diocesan clergy and laity; we also visited Maidstone to meet the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates. Individually, members took advantage of visits abroad to engage with local opinion, for example in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Eunice Okorocha, our colleague living in Nigeria, took opportunities to sound out local opinion there and at a conference in South Africa that involved delegates from a number of African countries. Keith Rayner engaged in similar ways in Australia.
On 6 December 2000 we released our Consultation Paper. This paper looked at each of the Archbishop’s main roles, and sought to expose the options for action that evidence and discussion had identified. It asked for responses by the end of February 2001. In March, I accompanied those members of the Review Team who visited the meeting of Anglican Communion Primates in Kanuga, North Carolina. This was a memorable and highly educative experience to which we refer later in this report.
Throughout, we have been most grateful for the thoughtful responses of the many people who offered their views. We have read and attended to them closely. We have valued all these contributions made from often different but always illuminating perspectives.
In addition to our own reading, visits and correspondence, we have held a series of interviews at Lambeth Palace to explore some issues in more depth.
We are grateful to those who helped us in this way, sometimes at a degree of personal inconvenience. It has been typical of the whole exercise that everyone approached gave their help freely and without reserve.
We have, of course, been aware throughout our work that there have been two parallel inquiries taking place looking at cognate areas. Both have published reports — respectively in May and June. The first is a Synod review of Crown Appointment Commission procedures chaired by Lady Perry, and the second is the Archbishops’ review of bishops’ needs and resources (Resourcing Bishops, Church House Publishing, 2001) conducted under the chairmanship of Professor Mellows. Having completed its consideration of the needs and resources of bishops, the latter review will be moving on to look at the needs and resources of the Archbishops. In the case of both Lady Perry’s and Professor Mellows’s reviews, we believe that our conclusions are compatible with theirs.
a) Legislation should provide that the ordinary diocesan duties be devolved permanently to a Bishop in Canterbury so styled. We understand that this may be effected by taking a fresh power by Measure to make Orders prescribing appropriate schemes, such Orders to be subject to negative procedure, and reviewable in the sense that they would be capable of being remade;
b) We recommend that it should remain for the Archbishop alone to send names to the Crown for appointment as Bishop of Dover. However, in recognition of the de facto diocesan role of the Bishop of Dover, we recommend further that a tailored procedure should be developed for this task. In that respect, we agree with the thrust of the proposals of the Perry Committee that so far as possible the procedure should in principle draw on Crown Appointment Commission practices or the successor procedures recommended by that Committee. [footnote 1] In essence, we envisage that the Archbishop should consult widely in order to produce a statement of local requirement, a list of personal and professional qualities, and suggestions of possible candidates. We think that in the case of the Bishop of Dover the Archbishop should consult and involve both the Vacancy in See Committee and experienced members of the Crown Appointments Commission (or its successor) for these purposes;
c) The Bishop of Dover as well as the Archbishop should by law have an assigned place — reflected appropriately also in the customary processions in the cathedral — for his cathedra in Canterbury Cathedral, if possible opposite that of the Archbishop himself;
d) The Archbishop should retain a residence in Canterbury (probably in part of the Old Palace), and retain normal episcopal rights to preach in the Cathedral, for example at Christmas and Easter, consecrate his suffragans, install senior clergy, ordain perhaps once a year, and, in consultation with the Bishop of Dover and with the latter’s support, express his continuing interest in and support for the life of the diocese in such ways as are compatible with maintaining the integrity of the delegation.
a) While the boundaries between the two English Provinces should be kept under review, there should at this stage be no programme of large-scale adjustment, nor should a third archbishopric be created;
b) While there should be no formal delegated arrangements for episcopal pastoral care in the Southern Province, every encouragement should be given to the emergence of informal groupings and other arrangements for this purpose; and
c) The Archbishop should consider instituting an immediate review of the administrative functions linked with the Metropolitical and related roles. The review’s brief should be — with the clear intention of removing obligations on the Archbishop — to identify their extent and practical incidence, and recommend what changes of practice and law should be made to facilitate their further delegation.
a) The Archbishop of Canterbury should conduct a strategic distancing from the current degree of his day-to-day involvement in the detailed administrative affairs or management of the Church of England in England;
b) So far as practicable, senior bishops should more formally than now be allocated policy portfolios as spokesmen for the Church of England as well as other delegated duties, and both Archbishops should hold themselves in principle in reserve to intervene only when there is some clear necessity for their personal involvement;
c) There should be a conscious policy to develop the role of the Archbishop of York in the overall governance of the Church of England in England, this to be accompanied by such changes in staff support at Bishopthorpe and in the episcopal management of the diocese of York as may be necessary;
d) The Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, and possibly other senior bishops, should take on a greater share of representative attendance at State events.
a) We believe that leadership of the Anglican Communion will remain one of the principal modern roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not an optional function but one that has emerged from the dispersion and growth of churches abroad in communion with the Church of England, and their current needs and contributions on the world stage. Because they require him to do what only he can do, there are considerable limits on his ability to delegate these roles, and in practice they are going to remain — and almost certainly continue to grow — in the foreseeable future;
b) From this fact flow inevitable consequences for the Archbishop’s other roles in England, and this consideration must powerfully reinforce the case for the recommendations in respect of them that we have already made;
c) Nonetheless, the Anglican Communion should be encouraged to do more to develop its own forms of subsidiary leadership both at regional level and in respect of the Anglican Communion Office;
d) Steps should be taken to establish a post at episcopal level at Lambeth funded by the Anglican Communion to act as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s right hand in Anglican Communion affairs, with a view to its holder deputizing wherever practicable for the Archbishop in the Anglican Communion, and helping to coordinate support with the Anglican Communion Office. The post holder should come from the Anglican Communion overseas, and be selected by the Archbishop in consultation with the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates;
e) There should be renewed attempts to improve the financial position of the Anglican Communion Office so that it may be equipped to discharge the expectations being placed upon it. One of the parallel objects should be to reduce the dependence of the Anglican Communion on what is in fact a subsidy from the English Church Commissioners;
f) Consideration should, therefore, be given to strengthening the fundraising professionalism of the Anglican Communion Office by means of appointing a funded development officer who will also relieve so far as possible the fundraising burdens at present resting on the Archbishop of Canterbury;
g) The demands now placed upon the Archbishop for visits to Provinces are extensive and should be managed by means of a more controlled regime. Visits should form part of a thought- through strategy for the evaluation of the worth of all visits. Apart from exceptional circumstances, the aim should be to have no more than two formal tours a year of, where this is feasible, no more than a week’s length. The programmes should be decided by the Archbishop after consultation involving his advisers with the Province on its proposals. Last-minute changes should be kept to a minimum;
h) The Primates should be invited to review the question of the Archbishop of York’s membership of the Primates’ Meeting.
a) The Archbishop should retain his Joint Presidential role in the case of Churches Together in England, but should feel free to delegate the maintenance of relations with other religious groupings to designated English bishops, in cooperation so far as it may be practicable with colleague members of the Anglican Communion. This will need to be a flexible strategy depending on the gifts and availability of particular bishops. However, it may over time be possible to expect particular diocesan posts to develop continuing responsibilities, just as a number of dioceses (for example, Salisbury with the Sudan) have forged continuing links with other Anglican Communion Provinces;
b) Designated staff should be retained in both Lambeth and Church House, but their respective portfolios should be kept under review. Broadly, the Secretary for Ecumenical Affairs should concentrate solely on those matters that require the Archbishop’s involvement because only he can address the issues concerned, including maintaining personal relations with other religious leaders. In principle, all other matters should be handled in Church House so far as possible, with the staff there acting in support of the Archbishop.
a) The Archbishop should retain a capacity at Lambeth to express and further his personal sponsorship of interfaith relations, but he should be sparing in extending his personal involvement when new initiatives such as the World Bank Initiative have developed beyond successful launch;
b) In so far as interfaith activity increases, the involvement of other bishops and the Anglican Communion should be considered on the same principles as should be applied in the case of ecumenical relations.
a) The work of the Lambeth Palace staff should in future be coordinated by a chief of staff with authority to ensure that policy preparation is fully coordinated within the Palace and between the Palace and the National Church Institutions, the Anglican Communion Office and Bishopthorpe;
b) To that end, the chief of staff should establish more collective working methods (e.g. the weekly senior staff meeting, chaired perhaps monthly by the Archbishop) where policy work is debated and coordinated. The objectives should be clarity in long-term planning, and clear and effective lines of executive responsibility;
c) The chief of staff should be responsible for overall staff and resource management at Lambeth Palace and for the oversight of remaining Metropolitical business; and should be directly responsible to the Archbishop for the management of the Archbishop’s diary;
d) The occupant of the post should be a person (probably lay) with considerable private or public sector management experience, a track record of achievement, and high intelligence and energy. It follows that that person should be paid at a commensurate level;
e) The size and deployment of the Lambeth staff should, bearing in mind its special functions and subject to any conclusions of Professor Mellows and his colleagues, be managed with respect to the same principles that are applied to staff in the National Church Institutions generally;
f) It should be a policy goal to delegate tasks from Lambeth to elsewhere unless their discharge requires the personal attention of the Archbishop, or has particular and immediate implications for his office;
g) The Archbishop should continue to be housed in Lambeth Palace;
h) There should be a carefully constructed and authoritative planning team (probably run by the Secretary General to the Archbishops’ Council or, when in post, the new-style Lambeth Chief of Staff) set up immediately when an incumbent Archbishop decides to retire — in order to prepare for announcing that decision and be responsible for assisting at all the following stages, and in particular with the induction (though not, of course, the appointment) of his successor, with the object of preparing him for the work ahead and to permit him to make informed choices about how he will address his ministry.
The modern Archbishop of Canterbury has many and varied responsibilities, ecclesiastical and civil, national and international. As well as being the diocesan bishop of Canterbury, he is Metropolitan of the Province of Canterbury and Primate of All England. As senior bishop of the worldwide Anglican Communion of 38 autonomous Provinces, he convenes and presides over the decennial Lambeth Conference and is President of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting. In the United Kingdom he occupies a significant place in the public life of the nation and is seen as the most representa ti ve Christian voice in national affairs. Internationally, too, there are situations in which his influence may be considerable.
The extensive range of the Archbishop’s responsibilities stems directly from his occupancy of the historic See of Canterbury. When Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine to Kent in 597, it was with a plan for two ecclesiastical provinces in England with Metropolitans in London and York. At the time, however, it was impracticable for Augustine to establish himself in London. Canterbury remained as Augustine’s See. His successors in that See continued to be the Metropolitan of the Province of Canterbury and subsequently the Primate of All England. A cluster of responsibilities became attached to the Office of Archbishop of Canterbury because he was the bishop of the senior See in England.
Over the centuries those responsibilities have led to Archbishops of Canterbury occupying a leading position in the political as well as the social and spiritual life of the English nation. Although the Church of England’s political influence has declined over the last century, the spiritual role of the Archbishop of Canterbury has arguably never been more significant. At the beginning of the new millennium, the Church of England enters a time of great opportunity, though from a shifting base. Paradoxically, in a heavily secularized culture, spiritual hunger and curiosity are growing. The demand for Church schools and for Anglican chaplains in hospitals and prisons is increasing. So too is a perception of the Church of England (along with other churches and faith groups) as the ‘leaven’ in the dough of communities, a role that is beginning to be given explicit political recognition.
The shifting base of the Church of England reflects the fact that, as in virtually all other denominations in developed Western societies, the number of regular Sunday churchgoers is still falling, as is the number of stipendiary clergy, despite a recent increase in the number of ordinands in training. The profile of clergy and congregations is an ageing one and the Church of England is finding it difficult to attract and retain the interest and participation of children and young people. Yet studies of church attendance show a shifting pattern with increased numbers going to church in the week. They also show that many more people are involved with the Church in one way or another than sit in the pews on Sunday. The Church increasingly recognizes its missionary role in England and is beginning to find new ways to reach people outside the normal Sunday services. The huge success of Alpha and other evangelistic tools bears witness to the vitality of the Gospel and the thirst for spiritual sustenance.
In this challenging context, the demand on the Archbishop of Canterbury to show spiritual and missionary leadership in England as well as in the Communion is enormous. Interest in the activities and utterances of the Archbishop has never been greater. Although ready to be strongly critical of the Church, as of any other institution in contemporary society, the British media have never been more demanding or more willing to devote column inches to coverage of the Archbishop. The Archbishop of Canterbury may no longer be the spiritual director of the English people but he remains the nation’s primary spiritual conscience. The modern media require a personality to whom they can turn for comment. In return they scrutinize that individual’s life and opinions with an intensity that must often be hard to take. The desire for clear and firm leadership in the Church both reflects the demand for missionary leadership and assumes that the Archbishop has more control over the Church’s institutions than he in fact possesses.
Over the last 10 to 15 years those institutions have also undergone a significant transformation. Increasing collegiality among the bishops has been accompanied by a growing partnership between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York in leading the work of the Church of England at national level. As a result of the advent in January 1999 of the Archbishops’ Council, the staff of the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace is more clearly integrated into the work of all the Church of England’s national bodies. The Archbishops’ shared opportunity to give leadership — through their Joint Presidencies of General Synod and of the Council — is perhaps greater than ever before. How to enable the Archbishop of Canterbury in particular to seize that opportunity while avoiding being sucked into the unreal role of managing director of the Church of England is one of the key questions for our Review.
Initially the growth of the Anglican Communion abroad was directly related to British imperial expansion. As colonies were established and British settlement spread, so did the Church of England, both in order to minister to members of the Church and to engage in mission to indigenous peoples. In due course, dioceses were established overseas and bishops consecrated for those dioceses. At first, these were understood to be bishops and dioceses of the Church of England under the ultimate oversight of the Archbishop of Canterbury (though not part of the Province of Canterbury). Even when colonial dioceses were grouped in Provinces they were still considered throughout the nineteenth century to come under the general oversight of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Meanwhile, extra-Provincial dioceses still looked to the Archbishop of Canterbury as their Metropolitan.
A different pattern emerged from the United States of America. There were no bishops there before independence, and the first American bishop was consecrated by bishops in Scotland who were not part of the established Church. In consequence of the political break with Britain, the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States provided for a church that, while clearly Anglican in its formularies and order, was autonomous in government. Thus the precedent was set for what was eventually to become the typical pattern for the Anglican Communion — a fellowship of churches, rooted in a common history and sharing a common faith and order, but each autonomous. As the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth and as Anglicanism spread to parts of the world that had never been under British rule this pattern became the norm.
In this process of the evolution of Anglicanism, the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury also evolved. It has tacitly come to be recognized that to be in communion with the See of Canterbury and its Archbishop is the practical test of membership in the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop’s actual jurisdiction is limited to the Church of England and as Metropolitan for the few remaining extra-Provincial dioceses overseas. Yet his office has a spiritual and moral influence extending far beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. As the recognized leader of the Anglican Communion he leads a significant Christian communion that is represented in every continent. Together with the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Archbishop of Canterbury is generally recognized as one of the most significant Christian leaders in the world. It is not coincidental that the status of each of these spiritual leaders is rooted in the historic see of which he is the bishop.
In all areas of life the present tendency is to focus attention and expectations on the leader. It may easily lead to demands that are unrealistic. In some parts of the Communion, for example, there is a tendency to think of the Archbishop as a kind of Anglican Pope, able to exercise jurisdiction throughout the Communion. Such a position has neither been claimed nor desired by any Archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed, one of the marks of Anglicanism as it has evolved has been the positive affirmation that the Church in each of the 38 Provinces should have the power to order its life according to the culture and needs of the Province within the constraints of the biblical faith as the Church has received it. There is indeed a lively debate in the Anglican Communion on the nature and exercise of authority in the Church and in particular on the possible role of central organs of the Communion in setting limits to undue diversity. We also note the strong resistance to any weakening of the principle that ultimate legislative authority lies with the Provinces rather than with any Communion-wide body. This does not mean that the so-called ‘Instruments of Unity’ — the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting — have no authority. But it is an authority of moral suasion, not of juridical control. The authority of an Archbishop of Canterbury is real, but it is an authority of influence, not of decree.
One of the major issues faced in this Review is how much of the Archbishop’s time and effort should be devoted to the Church of England and the United Kingdom and how much to the wider Anglican Communion. There can be no doubt that his first responsibility lies at home where his immediate jurisdiction lies. The clearer the Archbishop’s leadership at home, the more effective will be his leadership of the whole Communion. Yet the reverse is also true. Much of the growth and vitality of Anglicanism at present is happening in the younger churches. This needs encouragement; the interest, counsel and (when practicable) the personal presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury are great sources of encouragement. Some churches are living in circumstances of political instability, economic pressure and persecution; and the support of the rest of the Anglican Communion, symbolized above all by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is appreciated to a degree not readily understood by those living in more comfortable circumstances. It is true, of course, that others besides the Archbishop can give this support. However, no one else has the same symbolic significance.
That symbolic role is no less important for the maintenance of unity in the Anglican Communion. There is need for a symbolic head who, as Archbishop Runcie liked to say, ‘gathers’ the churches of the Communion. The ability of the Archbishop to gather and lead, however, is most effective when he has the kind of understanding of the needs and circumstances of the churches that can only come by personal contact. In particular his personal relationships with fellow Primates and bishops are important for the creation and deepening of those bonds of affection that are so important for a Communion whose constitutive principle is not legal sanction but mutual fellowship. It made a great difference to the last two Lambeth Conferences, which both faced confronting issues, that they were presided over by Archbishops of Canterbury who had visited widely the churches of the Communion and who had established warm personal relationships with many of the bishops. Time needs to be devoted to the building of such personal relationships, and a strategic programme of visiting the churches of the Communion is a necessary part of the process.
It follows from what has been said that there are good ecclesiological reasons for the Archbishop of Canterbury to be not only Primate of All England but also the leader of the Anglican Communion. There are, however, disadvantages. The symbolism continues to be associated with a leader who is always British, who is part of an established Church, and who is linked through establishment with the government of the United Kingdom, a former colonial power. Such an association seems to some increasingly at odds with a worldwide Communion that is multiracial and multicultural and that is overwhelmingly located in wholly independent countries. For most of those countries independence represented a rejection or friendly evolution out of the British Empire. [footnote 2] It follows that, while there are parts of the Communion where the Archbishop’s ability to call on the resources of the British Foreign Office for advice and assistance can be a real advantage, there are other parts where it may give rise to a suspicion of old-fashioned interference and of extraneous political considerations influencing Church policies. Any review of the role and office of the Archbishop of Canterbury must take account of these matters.
Six main roles nowadays fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In a situation where the last two stem from the first four, these roles are as follows:
Since 597, the Archbishop’s See has been at Canterbury. Dr Carey is the 103rd Archbishop and his diocese in East Kent has a population of 825,000 people and comprises 270 parishes in an area of nearly 1,000 square miles.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has what is known as metropolitical authority (that is, a supervisory authority for defined purposes) in relation to all bishops and clergy in the 30 dioceses in southern England. The Archbishop of York has the same authority in relation to the 14 dioceses in northern England.
The Archbishop has this title in recognition of his lead ecclesiastical role in England. The Archbishop of York is styled ‘Primate of England’.
The Anglican Communion includes all 38 provinces in communion with the See of Canterbury, a total of about 70 million members throughout the world.
The Archbishop of Canterbury takes the lead in respect of Anglican relationships with other Christian churches in the United Kingdom and abroad.
Similarly, the Archbishop of Canterbury leads in respect of Anglican relationships with other faiths.
We have considered the present balance between these roles by looking into how the Archbishop’s time is spent between them. In practice, this is not a simple arithmetical question to be answered, for example, by totting up so many engagements listed in diaries. Even on that basis there are, as might be expected, variations between years — though 1998 was exceptional in the time devoted to Anglican Communion matters because it was the year of the decennial Lambeth Conference which took place in Canterbury.
In addition, like others discharging national and international roles, the Archbishop’s time is not compartmentalized into specific allocations by subject. When travelling he will be preparing himself for events quite unrelated to the one in hand. During evenings when he has no formal engagement, he will be preparing for the next day’s business. He has no weekends to himself and his family unless they are factored into the diary. Above all, as a priest and pastor, he has to find time for prayer, reading and reflection — itself a continuous process rather than one marked by discrete allocations of time.
Then there is also the constant flow of correspondence. The times have long gone of which it was recorded that the day’s post for everyone at the Palace — that is, not solely for the Archbishop — could be contained comfortably in a single foolscap envelope. Whilst the Archbishop does not himself deal with every item and will often have assistance with those that he finalizes, the weight of modern correspondence levels means there is no respite from the constant attention and thought that has to be devoted to responding.
If we look at engagements alone, and bear in mind the qualifications necessary in doing so fulfill them, we find that, in recent years, nearly half the Archbishop’s engagements have fallen in roughly equal amounts of time between Church of England governance, the Canterbury diocese and Anglican Communion affairs. No other functions have scored as heavily, though engagements concerning ecumenical affairs, relations with church organizations (including diocesan and church visits) and public affairs (including media occasions) have between them sometimes amounted to almost a quarter of the whole.
The Archbishop is always ‘on show’. The many speaking engagements require particularly concentrated attention. In general, the proliferation of media has greatly increased the number of media engagements with the opportunities as well as the burdens that they bring. In one recent year, for example, the Archbishop undertook 62 broadcasting engagements on radio and television, prepared 29 articles for the press, delivered 89 sermons and speeches, and authorized 70—plus press releases on a great variety of subjects.
It will be for the second phase of the Review chaired by Professor Mellows to consider resources in closer detail. We have, however, kept in mind the orders of magnitude concerned in the immediate support of the Archbishop’s ministry.
The Church Commissioners are now, and will clearly remain, the principal source of funds in support of the Archbishop. As we noted in the Consultation Paper, there are other sources — of which the charity the Lambeth Fund is the most significant. However, none individually or collectively could be regarded as capable of offering more — vital though such contributions have been — than discretionary and occasional contributions to aspects of the Archbishop’s ministry.
However, pointing out that the authority for their support remains a Measure passed in the circumstances obtaining in 1943, the Commissioners have remarked to us:
One might nonetheless question how far, in the changed circumstances of over fifty years later, the Commissioners should continue to provide for what is an expanding and very significant international role, notwithstanding the fact that this work in both its Anglican Communion and ecumenical aspects is a key part of the Archbishop’s Ministry.
As will be seen, we have been sure to keep these issues before us when addressing our terms of reference, and we will, accordingly, turn to deal with particular matters from time to time.
We need to define early on what we judge to be the right link between the Archbishop and his diocese.
The Archbishop has always been the diocesan for the Canterbury diocese. Historically, the amount of time that Archbishops have spent in the diocese or upon diocesan affairs has varied greatly. Some medieval Archbishops gave very little time to this responsibility and in practice delegated the functions to others. It is only since the end of the nineteenth century that the Archbishop once again acquired a residence in Canterbury itself.
The present Archbishop is supported by two suffragan bishops, the Bishops of Dover and of Maidstone. Because he cannot offer them the attention possible for an exclusively diocesan bishop, the present Archbishop has substantially delegated his functions as a personal decision, though by means of a legal instrument, to the Bishop of Dover. This instrument retains force only for the duration of the archiepiscopacy. Though it does not bind the Archbishop’s successors, it could be renewed or altered by them. The Bishop of Dover’s special position is now recognized by the fact that he is by law a full member of the House of Bishops (other suffragans have no automatic membership), and is styled the ‘Bishop in Canterbury’. But the appointment, like the extent of the delegation, remains personal to the Archbishop and does not go through the Crown Appointments Commission process.
We took an early opportunity to visit Canterbury to meet a range of senior and parochial clergy, diocesan officials and lay members of the Archbishop’s Council in the diocese. In the diocese we received the impression from many people that present arrangements lacked clarity and, above all, permanence. Although most people generally supported the present arrangements, there were important differences of emphasis about how they might be taken forward.
Some thought that the Archbishop should retain a full diocesan responsibility but only for some smaller area of the present diocese, for example a reduced portion of East Kent or, more radically, only the City of Canterbury or even the Cathedral Precincts. Others rejected any shrinking of the diocese and argued that it would be better to build on the processes set in train by current delegations. It was welcomed that the present Archbishop had gone further than his predecessors in delegating by means of a formal instrument and, moreover, had observed both the letter and the spirit of that delegation. Experience had shown that delegation on that scale could work satisfactorily. However, because it was still in the form of a personal delegation, a degree of uncertainty still hedged the arrangements, and there was felt to be a strong case for giving them permanence while arranging for the Archbishop to remain ‘earthed’ in the diocese.
In the December Consultation Paper, we displayed these options for further consideration and depicted them as lying within two extremes. On the one hand, things might be left largely as they were. On the other, the delegation could be made permanent and the appointment of the Bishop of Dover brought within the full Crown Appointments Commission procedure. We mentioned also the alternative of making the Bishop of Dover fully responsible as the diocesan bishop for most of the present see, but reserving a small area to the Archbishop.
Later comment from within the diocese strongly supported the approach of giving the present form of delegation greater permanence. It did not favour resort to a reserved area for the Archbishop, although this was supported by some from outside the diocese.
The Archbishop is, plainly, no ordinary diocesan. His duties far transcend those functions.
As we see it, there are two questions that arise: should the Archbishop retain any actual, legal connexion with his diocese; and, if he should, how may that connexion be best expressed?
In some parts of the Anglican Communion (for example, North America), ‘presiding bishops’ have been appointed who retain no personal see. However, we do not believe that the link between the Archbishop and the See of Canterbury should be broken. The Archbishop derives his distinctive status from the fact that he occupies the historic See of St Augustine. His status as Primate of All England, President of the Lambeth Conference, of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates’ Meeting all derive from his occupancy of the See of Canterbury. Being in communion with the See of Canterbury is the concrete test of membership in the Anglican Communion. Archbishops and Primates are not a distinct order of ministry. Rather, they are members of the order of bishops, exercising in addition a distinctive jurisdictional and leadership role. It is, we believe, right that, like his fellow diocesan bishops, the Archbishop be rooted in a see. There is a real value for him as a person to be ‘earthed’ in a see so that he may continue to retain that closeness to the life of a local community that goes with being a diocesan. Divorced from a see, he would be in danger of being seen as an ecclesiastical politician and manager rather than a chief pastor and spiritual leader.
This has implications for the organization of diocesan work. As explained above, there is already in place a scheme of substantial delegation. As recalled, the December Consultation Paper identified three possibilities: leaving things alone, making present delegations permanent, or reserving some limited enclave of the diocese exclusively to the Archbishop whilst making a permanent delegation in respect of the rest.
We do not consider the last possibility desirable or viable. Reserving either the City of Canterbury or the Cathedral Precincts, for example, would not remove the need for the Archbishop to appoint someone to operate as his suffragan. It is not the size of the diocese that makes continuous attention by the Archbishop impossible but the nature of his other duties. Such divided authority would lead to fragmentation in East Kent, perceptions that one area received more, or more superior, attention than the other, and the possibility of different policies evolving in contiguous areas, one of which entirely surrounded the other. The enclave approach has the effect of deflecting attention from and avoiding what we regard as the important issue — the organization of episcopal leadership and authority in East Kent.
Of the remaining options, we do not think that the first (leaving matters alone) would be satisfactory. The bold delegation to the Bishop of Dover has been so successful that it has created a local appetite for pressing the process further. The people of the diocese, both clergy and lay, appear to appreciate the advantages of having a fully resident bishop, and would like remaining ambiguities about his role removed.
There are some arguments the other way. A permanent delegation could be thought to call into question the continuance of the very rooting in the See that has been accepted as essential. Such a delegation might seem to attenuate the Archbishop’s involvement to a degree that made it more nominal than real. It might not be immediately clear what the relationship would be between Archbishop and Bishop. Can there be both an Archbishop and a Bishop in (or of) Canterbury?
But these arguments fail to address all the facts of the present situation: the delegation is sweeping and, though in theory revocable, probably in practice continuous; the diocese itself would prefer permanence to uncertainty; Bishop and Archbishop have already found ways to accommodate each other; and the Archbishop will not be able or be expected in the future to devote more time to the diocese than he already does. A more permanent form of delegation would also result in a more settled role for the Bishop of Dover and perhaps in time lessen the need for a second suffragan. Steps should be taken so far as possible to remove any feeling of guilt Archbishops may feel about being unable to act in all respects as other diocesans. All together these measures should make it possible to reduce the proportion of time that Archbishops spend in the diocese as compared with concentrating on the national and international roles.
We consider that the balance of argument is conclusively in favour of making present delegations permanent. It follows that we recommend that:
a) Legislation should provide that the ordinary diocesan duties be devolved permanently to a Bishop in Canterbury so styled. We understand that this may be effected by taking a fresh power by Measure to make Orders prescribing appropriate schemes, such Orders to be subject to negative procedure in Parliament, and reviewable in the sense that they would be capable of being remade;
b) We recommend that it should remain for the Archbishop alone to send names to the Crown for appointment as Bishop of Dover. However, in recognition of the de facto diocesan role of the Bishop of Dover, we recommend further that a tailored procedure should be developed for this task. In that respect, we agree with the thrust of the proposals of the Perry Committee that so far as possible the procedure should in principle draw on Crown Appointment Commission practices or the successor procedures recommended by that Committee. [footnote 3] In essence, we envisage that the Archbishop should consult widely in order to produce a statement of local requirement, a list of personal and professional qualities, and suggestions of possible candidates. We think that in the case of the Bishop of Dover the Archbishop should consult and involve both the Vacancy in See Committee and experienced members of the Crown Appointments Commission (or its successor) for these purposes;
c) The Bishop of Dover as well as the Archbishop should by law have an assigned place — reflected appropriately also in the customary processions in the cathedral — for his cathedra in Canterbury Cathedral, if possible opposite that of the Archbishop himself;
d) The Archbishop should retain a residence in Canterbury (probably in part of the Old Palace), and retain normal episcopal rights to preach in the Cathedral, for example at Christmas and Easter, consecrate his suffragans, install senior clergy, ordain perhaps once a year, and, in consultation with the Bishop of Dover and with the latter’s support, express his continuing interest in and support for the life of the diocese in such ways as are compatible with maintaining the integrity of the delegation.
The Southern Province of England has 30 diocesan bishops. The Northern Province has 14. In his capacity as Metropolitan, the Archbishop is the supreme pastoral authority for his Province. The Archbishop is assisted by staff at Lambeth Palace, principally at present the Bishop at Lambeth.
As part of this role, the Archbishop chairs the Church Appointments Committee panel, which recommends names to the Crown to fill episcopal vacancies in the Southern Province, and performs any consecrations that result. He undertakes diocesan visits, certain formal functions in relation to lapsed patronage (in cases where patronage has not been exercised within nine months of vacancy), permissions in respect of clergy ordained overseas, and the issue of faculties to allow those who have been divorced or remarried, or who have married a divorced person, to proceed towards selection for ordination. The Archbishop is also the chairman of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, a body that in practice meets rarely. The Archbishop appoints the senior officials of the Court of Arches, the Provincial court of the Southern Province, to which appeals from the diocesan consistory courts lie. He is himself the appellate authority in certain cases, for example where a bishop has decided to depose a clergyman from Holy Orders following a finding of guilt for a criminal offence, or to withdraw licences from priests and lay readers.
In addition, the Archbishop has some roles that arise in form from his position as Primate but which are largely administrative in character and which it will be convenient to deal with in this context. The roles are those that represent the inheritance of the Legatine functions conferred on the Archbishop at the Reformation. Thus he is responsible for the issue of Special Licences for marriage and for the appointment of notaries public, in both cases throughout England and Wales. This work is largely undertaken by the Faculty Office on the Archbishop’s behalf. That Office’s involvement with the exercise of the third function — the award of ‘Lambeth degrees’ — is, however, slighter and the work is undertaken primarily within Lambeth Palace.
Finally, the Archbishop is patron of a large number of bodies, and in some cases — mostly educational bodies — he has a quasi-judicial role as Visitor to whom appeals may in certain circumstances be made. (The legal context of these functions is summarized in Appendix B.)
Little of the evidence received before or after the publication of the December Consultation Paper touched on these functions. There appeared to be little questioning of roles that seemed accepted as self-evidently archiepiscopal, yet they amount to a substantial burden of work. It is true that many of them are formal, inasmuch as the Archbishop’s signature is required on documents pondered and prepared by others. But there is no such thing as a purely formal signature in matters that affect the livelihood or happiness of others. We found some support for suggestions that burdens might be reduced by transferring a small number of dioceses (at most two or three) to the Northern Province, or eased by appointing a third Archbishop. The former suggestion may not be compatible, of course, with suggestions examined below about the role of the Archbishop of York.
As summarized in the Consultation Paper, the options seemed to lie between accepting things much as they were, or finding ways of reducing demands.
Although the proposal made to us for creating a third archbishopric attracted a great deal of attention, there was hardly any comment on the substance of these functions. This is largely, we think, because they are unperceived. Indeed, it is only recently that we ourselves feel that we have come to a better understanding of what is involved.
There are, we think, two keys to the situation. The first is to distinguish between the pastoral and administrative aspects of the functions, and the second is to apply to the latter the principles of delegation that we think should be brought to bear on all the Archbishop’s functions of that character.
The pastoral role is clearly in a special category. The sheer size of the Southern Province puts it at a disadvantage in comparison with the Northern Province. In the North, there was some apprehension that a greater involvement of the Archbishop of York outside his Province would be at the cost of the greater collegiate feeling and pastoral intimacy possible in a Province of 14 as opposed to 30 bishops.
We are clear that the weight of evidence is against creating a third archbishop. It is not in principle the right solution for present purposes, and it would be strongly opposed by those who would regard such a change as an unacceptable and unfeeling diversion of resources. Neither of the two feasible models would be attractive: simply splitting the Southern Province in two to equalize the Metropolitan role, or removing the Primate from all Provincial duties. The former would do little by itself significantly to relieve the Archbishop, and the latter would entirely sever the link with Canterbury that is the historic source of the Primate’s authority. Creating a third archbishop would offend many people, both clerical and lay, as a wrong-headed increase in the number of generals at the top of the Church at a time when the infantry on the ground in the parishes are coping with smaller numbers and heavier burdens.
This leaves the responses of moving dioceses from the South into the North to even up numbers, or delegating more explicitly. Whilst, strictly, these are not alternatives and could be to some extent run together, the latter seems more promising than the former. A flexible system of delegation fits better with a situation where duties will always tend to accumulate and thus will benefit from review and reallocation from time to time. Moving dioceses is not a straightforward matter. While some of our correspondents have ventured to nominate dioceses, there has been little unanimity beyond naming Lincoln, Derby and perhaps Lichfield. In all cases, the historic ties are strong and movement would require cumbersome changes in the law. It was put strongly to us in the Northern Province that there might be no net benefit if the advantage of the Southern Province were sought at the cost of the Northern. Accordingly, we do not consider large-scale movement of dioceses necessary or desirable.
Some of the administrative functions — both Provincial and Metropolitical — are highly complex, and there will always be arguments for keeping them as they are, namely a substantial demand on the Archbishop. But we do not accept this argument. As indicated above, we do not feel sufficiently informed about their scope. We have concluded that there should be a more detailed review of their current demands on the Archbishop’s attention. The review should identify those administrative functions that may properly be delegated and set out the legal changes necessary to make this possible. This area needs more specific examination than we can give to it.
It weighs with us that these duties will continue to grow. For example, it is possible that the latest Clergy Discipline Measure will make it easier for applicants to insist on appearing before the Archbishop personally. It seems likely, too, that one of the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 will be to inject appellate tiers into administrative procedures. The Archbishop should be involved only in circumstances when he alone can act. We envisage delegation not only perhaps to senior episcopal colleagues but also to episcopal groups or commissaries or designated officials.
The Consultation Paper had contemplated delegating some of the pastoral responsibilities to senior bishops, in particular those who for the time being were incumbents of such traditional roles as Dean or Chancellor of the Southern Province, that is the Bishops of London and Winchester. We are persuaded that such questions are not best dealt with by predetermined allocations of this kind.
It will be better for bishops to form their own groups for mutual support and encouragement as they think fit. They already meet in regional groups within the Provinces for certain purposes, and in informal cell groups for study, prayer and refreshment. It has been noted that pastoral advice is sought not from particular office holders in themselves but from those individuals who have acquired an informal reputation of their own. In the same way, it seems right to encourage the informal emergence of such arrangements for the bishops to offer each other mutual support.
We recommend that:
a) While the boundaries between the two English Provinces should be kept under review, there should at this stage be no programme of largescale adjustment, nor should a third archbishopric be created;
b) While there should be no formal delegated arrangements for episcopal pastoral care in the Southern Province, every encouragement should be given to the emergence of informal groupings and other arrangements for this purpose; and
c) The Archbishop should consider instituting an immediate review of the administrative functions linked with the Metropolitical and related roles. The review’s brief should be — with the clear intention of removing obligations on the Archbishop — to identify their extent and practical incidence, and recommend what changes of practice and law should be made to facilitate their further delegation.
It is in and from this role that all the Archbishop of Canterbury’s national functions are expressed. In the ceremonial order of precedence, he stands next to the Head of State, the Queen, whom he crowns. He is a member of the legislature with direct access to the government of the day. He is chaplain not only to the Queen and other members of the royal family but pastor also to the nation.
His remains the leading voice to speak for the ethical and personal values of the Christian religion. That religion continues to be the dominant religion in our society despite the extent of withdrawal from formal observance at public services, and the arrival of new religious groups within the population. Whatever has been the increased secularization of our society, the role of the Archbishop is as well recognized and respected as ever; and the need for a strong pastoral and prophetic voice remains as great as ever.
Within the Church of England, he stands at the apex of its institutions: he is Chairman of the Church Commissioners for England and — jointly with the Archbishop of York — presides over the General Synod and the House of Bishops, and chairs the Archbishops’ Council and the Crown Appointments Commission.
Much of the evidence received concentrated on this area. The main focus was not on the ceremonial roles but on those that involved speaking to the nation and those that were concerned with the internal management of the Church of England. Broadly, there was some concern that the third of these tasks might crowd out the second.
Some English correspondents felt there was a danger of the Archbishop becoming overcommitted to Anglican Communion affairs to the neglect of what were regarded as core roles in England, but that did not appear to be a general attitude. Rather, acknowledging the extent of the competing demands on the Archbishop’s time, the weight of views was in favour of his English roles becoming less detailed. It was thought that he should become concerned more with the overall leadership of the Church of England than with practical management. Some wondered whether he need spend quite so much time on the institutions of the Church of England, for example General Synod business.
On the other hand, almost no one maintained that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be wholly removed from connection with these institutions. The argument, rather, has been that all these duties could benefit from being shared to a greater extent than now. Already senior bishops have acted in the lead as public spokesmen in certain public policy areas. For example, the Bishop of Winchester speaks on constitutional matters. Increasingly of late, the two Archbishops have shared leadership in a number of ways in Synod, the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council. Indeed, informally the Archbishop of York has come to shoulder more of the English duties. For example, although the Archbishop of Canterbury chairs the Church Commissioners’ Annual General Meeting, it is the Archbishop of York who acts in his place as Chairman of the Commissioners’ Board of Governors. It is now also the Archbishop of York who chairs the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops.
These leadership functions are all obviously important to the spiritual guidance of the nation and the life of the Church of England. The question is whether they all require the direct involvement of the Archbishop of Canterbury and what test may help to discriminate between them.
We think the right test is the one heralded at the beginning, that is, the Archbishop of Canterbury should concentrate on doing what only he can best do. If this is right, then the next question is, if the Archbishop of Canterbury ceases to do something, who should do it in his stead?
It is reasonable to distinguish in descending order between the Archbishop’s national, presiding and executive roles. Some are more easily delegated than others, as already noted, for example, in the case of the Church Commissioners. The style of these roles will change from time to time. For example, we understand that changes that have developed in recent years in the style of co-chairing the House of Bishops have helped to improve the quality of debate and decision-making in that forum. In the case of the Archbishops’ Council — still in its fledgling days — the Archbishop remains an active co-chairman. On the other hand, regardless of the significance of its agenda at any particular time, he regularly attends for the whole period of meetings of the General Synod.
In responding to this situation, our December Consultation Paper (paragraph 18) effectively pondered two possible schemes for delegation. The first left matters largely as they were, and the second raised the question whether his colleague Primate, the Archbishop of York, might take a more defined general responsibility for the governance of the Church of England in England.
Apart from his episcopal and Provincial duties, it can be said that there is no job description for the second Primate. What these gifted men have undertaken has varied as a result of their individual preferences and earlier specializations. Despite variations in the portfolios they have developed, Archbishops of York remain national rather than regional figures. It would seem in principle right to define their contribution in a more settled and permanent way. (There are implications here for the composition of the Primates’ Meeting to which we return below.)
Comments on the Consultation Paper almost unanimously supported the second approach — advancing the role of the Archbishop of York. There were, of course, reservations. They are certainly not negligible points: the Archbishop of York has but a very limited amount of support at Bishopthorpe; even more travel outside the Province would be necessary than now, with its attendant burdens; more frequent absence could only be at some cost to the present close pastoral style in the Northern Province. Any Archbishop of York is bound to value that closeness and be anxious not to dilute it. In addition, it has to be recognized that, whatever degree of delegation is undertaken, the nation (through the media) will always look to the Archbishop of Canterbury for his views on matters of national importance and controversy. So the pressures of the office will in many ways remain even if day-to-day preoccupations lessen. We nevertheless have to find effective ways of meeting the contemporary needs for leadership in the Church of England. Only the Archbishop of York could bring the requisite authority to some of the roles concerned.
This does not mean that the Archbishop of York should simply assume all the English responsibilities, or himself be expected to occupy the sort of ‘chief executive’ role we think inappropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury. Little would be gained by merely transferring potential overload from one person to another. It follows that we think that, just as the Archbishop of York now shoulders Church Commissioners’ duties, so should other senior bishops assume supportive roles that are fitted to their particular gifts and interests. Where, as already noted, the Bishop of Winchester, for example, speaks on constitutional matters, there is no reason in our view why this principle should not be extended more deliberately into as many fields as possible. The same considerations apply in the case of attendance at state occasions.
This would leave the Archbishop of York himself to concentrate on the things that only he can best do. In that way, he could wherever possible customarily chair the Archbishops’ Council and take the lead archiepiscopal role in General Synod. He might need increased support at Bishopthorpe — a matter to which we expect that Professor Mellows and his colleagues will turn as part of the next stage of their review. There would also be a concomitant requirement to rethink episcopal arrangements in the Diocese of York, choosing between the various models that have been developed in other cases. The Archbishop of York will need clarity in these arrangements, so that he and others know exactly the duties for which he is responsible.
The Archbishop of Canterbury would remain in touch as necessary with all these matters. He would do so more closely, though not necessarily as active chairman, for example with the Archbishops’ Council and the House of Bishops. There we imagine that he would retain a full interest in the House’s policy discussions and the right to intervene whenever he saw fit. In general, however, he would seek to reserve himself for commenting publicly only on the more important issues of the day. In the same way it would follow that he should not be expected automatically to attend every meeting of the General Synod or attend for the whole of its proceedings.
We recommend that:
a) The Archbishop of Canterbury should conduct a strategic distancing from the current degree of his day-to-day involvement in the detailed administrative affairs or management of the Church of England in England;
b) So far as practicable, senior bishops should more formally than now be allocated policy portfolios as spokesmen for the Church of England as well as other delegated duties, and both Archbishops hold themselves in principle in reserve to intervene only when there is some clear necessity for their personal involvement;
c) There should be a conscious policy to develop the role of the Archbishop of York in the overall governance of the Church of England in England, this to be accompanied by such changes in staff support at Bishopthorpe and in the episcopal management of the diocese of York as may be necessary;
d) The Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, and possibly other senior bishops, should take on a greater share of representative attendance at state events.
The Archbishop of Canterbury presides over the Anglican Communion. Amongst those who wrote and talked to us, there was less of a shared view on the development of this role than any other aspect. There appear to be two principal reasons. First, the Anglican Communion and its institutions are still developing. Views therefore represented part of a continuing debate about the Communion’s nature and goals. Second, the Communion includes people of many diverse backgrounds across the world; it is unlikely that they will share exactly the same viewpoint.
A special difficulty arises in England itself. Many people in England have only a limited perception of the Anglican Communion, if they have any perception at all. That was true of some of us at the start of our work. The idea that members of the Church of England are in a special relationship with churches in as many as 38 Provinces across the world is little understood by most men and women in the English pews. That is a pity.
The Anglican Communion has four ‘Instruments of Unity’. They are:
Of the four instruments, the Archbishop himself constitutes one, and he is president of the others. He is the central figure, but holds no centralized power. That is the paradox of the Anglican Communion.
The development of the Anglican Communion has been responsible for the largest area of growth in the Archbishop’s personal responsibilities in recent times. It is classically where he has been required to operate to undertake things that only the Archbishop of Canterbury can do. The visit of some of us to the Primates’ Meeting in Kanuga, North Carolina, in March 2001 brought home the extent and diversity of the Anglican Communion, the range of problems that it addresses, and the demands of leadership that fall to the Archbishop.
The Archbishop has to respond to invitations to visit particular provinces. There seems to be some misunderstanding about these visits. While their purpose and composition will vary from one part of the world to another, they are not recreational. Rather, as seen, for example in a number of recent cases, such visits can have the following functions:
The Archbishop’s leadership is personal. That fact, coupled with the fact that the Communion’s permanent institutions remain relatively underdeveloped, means that there can be only a limited carry over from one Archbishop to the next. As a consequence, every Archbishop has to take steps to establish and develop his relationship with the Communion. We have no doubt about the importance of these visits. The evidence available to us illustrated their notable impact, which tends to be far greater than any publicity they receive in Britain. But they are exacting and can be exhausting. Since they are made only in response to invitation, the organization of visits is essentially in the hands of the host church. But the choice of churches to be visited and the programme of each visit needs to be approached more strategically so that it may be more rigorously thought through and implemented than at present if the demands on the Archbishop’s time are not to become unreasonable.
Finance is important. The incorporated charity for financial purposes is the Anglican Consultative Council. Its principal source of income for current expenditure is derived from contributions received from member churches. The most recent position is set out in the Council’s Report and Financial Statement [footnote 4] for the period 1 January to 30 September 2000. The Anglican Communion Office itself costs a little over £900,000 a year, and the total costs (for example, including the Office of the Anglican UN Observer and meeting costs) runs at nearly £1.5 million. Appendix D lists the state of the contributions for that period and the budget for the following four years 2000/1-2003/4. The former shows some contribution shortfalls, whereas the latter looks forward to a gently rising total of contributions.
The level of expected contributions varies not according to the size of the churches but on assumptions about ability to pay. It must be difficult for some churches to contribute for these purposes. Some of the evidence we received doubted whether income from the Anglican Communion could be expected to grow substantially; this would inevitably limit its ability to develop its current limited institutions.
The Church Commissioners for England fund a major part of the Archbishop’s overseas travel costs — as they do for the two bishops in the See of Europe and all other bishops who represent the Archbishop at his request. Such costs are mainly in connection with Anglican Communion work — but they might relate to ecumenical affairs as well. There would also be other sources of funding for travel — for example, the Episcopalian Church funds many of the costs associated with visits to the United States and the Word Faith Development Dialogue funds some of the ecumenical visits.
The overall planning and cost of visits would normally comprise a reconnaissance visit by the Archbishop’s Secretary for Anglican Communion Affairs and/or his Secretary for Ecumenical Affairs. That person would then accompany the Archbishop on the visit itself together with other support staff where appropriate — for example, the Archbishop’s domestic chaplain or his Secretary for Public Affairs.
In the period 1990 to 2000, figures provided by the Church Commissioners show that costs for overseas travel for the Archbishop and paid by the Commissioners increased threefold. These costs include, of course, all travel for the Archbishop and his support team, accommodation, incidental expenses and prior planning visits. They go some way towards illustrating the burgeoning nature of the Archbishop’s overseas travel and the growth in demand of Anglican Communion and ecumenical work itself.
Four fundamental questions arise:
i. Should the Archbishop of Canterbury always be English, or could he be appointed in future from elsewhere in the Communion?
ii. Should the Office of Archbishop of Canterbury be separated from the presiding roles in the Anglican Communion?
iii. What is the scope for developing regional leadership in the Communion?
iv. Are there ways of strengthening the immediate support to the Archbishop at Lambeth?
In such a diverse and self-confident Communion, it would be surprising if we had not received evidence maintaining that the time had come to throw open appointment to the See of Canterbury to all bishops in the Anglican Communion. In these post-imperial days it could seem demeaning that the best candidate might be barred from appointment merely on grounds of nationality. There can be a feeling that the situation smacks of an old colonial hegemony reluctant to let go in wholly changed circumstances. In those Provinces in countries that were never part of the British Empire or now of the Commonwealth, the prohibition can seem particularly odd. This perception led some to argue that, if the position in respect of the See could not be changed, then at least the Presidency of the Communion might be separated from it.
The choice of the Archbishop of Canterbury is linked to the establishment of the Church of England. For the reasons given in Appendix B, establishment in its present form makes it impossible in law for the appointment to be thrown open to all comers. There is a continuing debate, within and outside the Church of England, about the merits of establishment. It is not for us to pronounce on these merits. But we have to make recommendations within a reasonable time frame. That means we have to take account of the fact that there is no decisive movement towards disestablishment at the present time. For the foreseeable future therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury will be British. It would indeed be somewhat bizarre if the Church of England were to be led by someone who was not British at a time when most other Churches of the Communion emphasize the importance of replacing foreigners in senior positions with someone from their own country. The Archbishop will continue to be chosen by the Crown Appointments Commission under the present procedure.
At present, the Anglican Communion has but a limited role in that procedure. First, the Commission writes to Primates seeking their views, and, secondly, the Secretary General attends the Crown Appointments Commission but does not vote. Because of its growing part in the life of an Archbishop, we believe that the role of the Anglican Communion in his appointment should be expanded. We therefore agree with the recommendation to that effect at paragraph 3.82 of the report — Working with the Spirit — of the Perry Committee.
Separating the Archbishopric of Canterbury from the Presidency of the Communion is the logical preference for those who believe that the present system is out of date, but who have to accept the Archbishop will continue to be British. This separation need not mean that the Archbishop of Canterbury would never be President of the Communion, merely that he need not necessarily be so. This idea may well gather strength as the years pass.
At a time when the Communion faces differences over doctrine, it would not be easy to devise a system of electing a President of the Communion that did not pitchfork these divisive issues into the process of election. Precisely because he is Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Carey has been able to prevent these disagreements from getting out of hand. Similar considerations at present hold back some leading churchmen, for example in Africa, who might otherwise be expected to favour a post-imperial system with a non-British Archbishop of Canterbury or a non-British President of the Anglican Communion. Separating the roles could have a tendency to weaken both, especially when the essential relationship is with the See of Canterbury. We cannot peer into a future in which the picture will change. But, if we are to be useful, we have to put aside these two propositions for the time being and focus on means of lightening the load on the Archbishop in his present role.
A number of ideas were put to us, and we took the opportunity of discussing some of them with the Primates at their meeting at Kanuga, North Carolina. There was some interest in the suggestion that the promotion of regional leadership, possibly designating individual regional convenors as ‘Vice Presidents’ of the Anglican Communion, could lead to more self-help in the Communion and less reliance on the Archbishop of Canterbury. It emerged, however, that regional structures were as yet often fairly shadowy affairs. Better, it was thought, that teams should be assembled for the particular objective in hand. Southern Africa had had some experience of the deployment of mixed teams (one led by the Archbishop of Japan) for this purpose.
We then explored how far it might be possible to create a role for someone who would relieve the Archbishop by being able to speak for him as appropriate on Anglican Communion affairs. This person could also act as an effective plenipotentiary, for example in supplementing the Archbishop’s visits to Provinces abroad, and providing a first point of contact in Lambeth for Primates.
It is not easy to devise a simple organizational answer. Incorporating the Anglican Communion Office into Lambeth would in the eyes of some imperil the integrity of an institution that is by definition separate from the Archbishop. Locating the Office in Canterbury would be attractive in historical terms but might in practice be seen as a form of exile inconvenient not only to it but to everyone else as well. However, there may well be important opportunities for the Anglican Communion to seize in relation to the new Education Centre’s facilities at Canterbury.
We believe that despite the difficulties it is right to consider asking a bishop from the wider communion to serve at Lambeth at the Archbishop’s right hand in matters affecting the Anglican Communion. This non-English bishop could take the title of ‘Bishop at Lambeth’, which would be no longer required as part of the purely English arrangements at Lambeth (see below). The right person would have a lot to bring to Lambeth, and the appointment would send an important signal to the world. The right candidate could be, for example, either a retiring Primate in good health bringing great experience, or a younger person bringing bite and vision to the role. Of course, such a person’s appointment would need to be processed to secure the agreement of the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates. It would also be right at this stage — for the reasons discussed immediately below — to ensure that the post was funded by the Anglican Communion. There remains the question of the relationship between this new bishop and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion. He could himself become the Secretary General and run that office. Or the Secretary General could continue in essentially an administrative and fundraising function under the new bishop. Or the two could co-exist, side by side, though that would require a sustained diplomatic effort to maintain harmony between them and prevent the occasional frictions which occur under the present system.
As remarked above, the relatively undeveloped character of the Anglican Communion’s institutions is reflected in the fact that the Church Commissioners in England still substantially underwrite part of their work. The growth over the years of all this activity has perhaps reached a point where the change is no longer one of degree but of kind. As the Church Commissioners have put it to us:
Yet although the Archbishop’s involvement in overseas affairs is due to his holding the See of Canterbury, his work for the Anglican Communion does not, it could be argued, benefit the diocese or Province of Canterbury, or indeed the Church of England nationally, any more directly than it benefits any other province of the wider Anglican Communion. On this basis there could be a case for suggesting that the expenses incurred in relation to Anglican Communion work might, for instance, be borne collectively by those provinces rather than by the Commissioners.
The Commissioners have also pointed out that, since their funds are fully committed, more spending under one head can only, of course, mean spending less elsewhere. In the Church of England at present there is some anxiety about where such cutbacks might fall.
Anglican Communion institutions are well aware of their financial limitations. As already noted, the Anglican Consultative Council is financed by a levy on its members, some of whom are in a much better position to contribute than others; and the present judgement is that there is little real prospect of this source being expanded. Various initiatives have, however, been taken to increase the funds available to the Anglican Communion Office (which remains of modest size) or to the Archbishop for Anglican Communion work. These include the Anglican Investment Agency, the Anglican Communion Fund, the Friends of the Anglican Communion Fund, and the Compass Rose Society and its proposed endowment fund. One of the consequences of such financial limitations is that the Archbishop feels obliged to undertake a good deal of personal fundraising. That causes disquiet among people who feel it is not the best use of his time and that he may be seen to give disproportionate attention to those donating money. This leaves the problem of the alternative. One suggestion is to provide a capital sum that would relieve him of this obligation. That is not for us to judge, but we would recommend the appointment of a professional fundraiser.
One last point in the search for ways of lightening burdens concerns the representation at Primates’ Meetings of the Church of England itself. At present, the Archbishop of Canterbury has in effect two roles at these meetings— chairman and representative of England. Granted the proposals we have made in the section above about the Archbishop’s role as Primate of All England, we believe the time has come to invite the Primates’ Meeting to consider whether the Archbishop of York should be invited to attend the Meeting in his capacity as Primate of England. While we appreciate why the decision was taken in the past not to include him, the grounds for that decision would seem materially changed if he assumes, as we recommend, a more general responsibility for the governance of the Church of England. We put this forward not on grounds of status but as a practical means of allowing the Archbishop of Canterbury to concentrate on leading the Communion’s discussions rather than also having to represent English concerns at the same time. Such a change would tend to the more effective discharge of both roles.
As the leader of the established Church of England and as one of only two or three recognized world Christian leaders, the Archbishop of Canterbury naturally seeks advice from time to time from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This is clearly prudent and should continue. A different question is whether the Archbishop should feel bound by such advice. We think it is right that he should not suspend his own judgement in such matters. There are certain to be occasions when he will think it right to disagree, as for example, over aspects of present policy on Sudan and Iraq. Conversely, he should not feel bound automatically to espouse the political positions of individual Provinces except on the same criteria that he would apply to the appraisal of British policy.
There are, of course, strong feelings on these points. When he visits Anglican Communion Provinces, there is a natural expectation that he will not import the British perspective and that he will actively sympathize with the local one. At the same time, there is a perception that, merely by accepting British diplomatic hospitality, he is identified with British foreign policy positions. No doubt the hospitality is generously offered and kindly meant. On the other hand, acceptance can sometimes be misunderstood.
Our conclusions and recommendations are:
a) We believe that leadership of the Anglican Communion will remain one of the principal modern roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not an optional function but one that has emerged from the dispersion and growth of churches abroad in communion with the Church of England, and their current needs and contributions on the world stage. Because they require him to do what only he can do, there are considerable limits on his ability to delegate these roles, and in practice they are going to remain and almost certainly continue to grow — in the foreseeable future;
b) From this fact flow inevitable consequences for the Archbishop’s other roles in England, and this consideration must powerfully reinforce the case for the recommendations in respect of them that we have already made;
c) Nonetheless, the Anglican Communion should be encouraged to do more to develop its own forms of subsidiary leadership both at regional level and at the Anglican Communion Office;
d) Steps should be taken to establish a post at episcopal level at Lambeth funded by the Anglican Communion to act as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s right hand in Anglican Communion affairs, with a view to its holder deputizing wherever practicable for the Archbishop in the Anglican Communion, and helping to coordinate support with the Anglican Communion Office. The post holder should come from the Anglican Communion overseas, and be selected by the Archbishop in consultation with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates;
e) There should be renewed attempts to improve the financial position of the Anglican Communion Office so that it may be equipped to discharge the expectations being placed upon it. One of the parallel objects should be to reduce the dependence of the Anglican Communion on what is in fact a subsidy from the English Church Commissioners;
f) Consideration should, therefore, be given to strengthening the fundraising professionalism of the Anglican Communion Office appointing a funded development officer who will also relieve so far as possible the fundraising burdens at present resting on the Archbishop of Canterbury;
g) The demands now placed upon the Archbishop for visits to Provinces are extensive and should be managed by means of a more controlled regime. Visits should form part of a thought-through strategy for the evaluation of the worth of all visits. Apart from exceptional circumstances, the aim should be to have no more than two formal tours a year of, where this is feasible, no more than a week’s length. The programmes should be decided by the Archbishop after consultation involving his advisers with the Province on its proposals. Last-minute changes should be kept to a minimum;
h) The Primates should be invited to review the question of the Archbishop of York’s membership of the Primates’ Meeting.
The need to establish and maintain healthy and constructive relations with other Churches has been a drive of the Church of England since the earliest days. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been in the lead since such contacts were initiated by Archbishop Cranmer with the leaders of Lutheran and other Reformed Churches in Europe.
Over the years these contacts grew to include Orthodox churches in different continents. Arrangements at one time saw Lutherans of Swedish extraction placed under Anglican pastoral care, and Greek Orthodox members separated from their own priests instructed by the Holy Synod in Athens to go to Anglican clergy for sacramental ministrations. Moravians first contacted in Europe were encountered again in what was then British North America.
For many years contacts depended on the personal initiatives of individual Archbishops, assisted by their chaplains. Arrangements became more formalized in the last century. Official conversations with other Churches began to take place, and in 1933 — after discussions protracted over some years in the Church Assembly — the Council for Foreign Relations was established. Initially concentrating on Orthodox Churches, its staff took the lead in the new relations with the Roman Catholic Church that began in the 1960s and led to the establishment of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission.
The Council’s work did not extend to non-Anglican Churches in the United Kingdom. Relationships there were conducted through other channels, including the British Council of Churches formed in 1942. From 1970 the initiation of the General Synod included a Board for Mission and Unity in Church House which largely superseded the work of the Council whose vestiges subsequently faded away. The Archbishop’s need for immediate support at Lambeth was recognized at first by part-time expedients and, from 1981, by the appointment of a Secretary for Ecumenical Affairs, to which post an Assistant Secretary was added in 1988. Broadly, the division between Church House and Lambeth is that Lambeth, in addition to representing the Archbishop’s interests across the range of current activity, takes the lead position in the case of the Archbishop’s relations with other Church leaders. These have been extensive over the last decade. Other English bishops have also been involved, especially in assuming roles in the Church of England’s relation with particular Churches abroad.
Within the United Kingdom, the Archbishop is one of the four Presidents of Churches Together in England, which was set up in 1990. This body brings the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the traditional Free Churches, together with the new Black-led churches, into a framework of relations with each other. A wider body, the Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, stands alongside Churches Together in England and is similarly of active concern to the Archbishop, though he has no formal role.
As the December Consultation Paper pointed out, the engagement of the Archbishop in these areas is not controversial. Nor did we receive any evidence suggesting that it was not important.
What the two options identified in the Consultation Paper sought to explore was the extent to which different degrees of consolidating activity between Church House and Lambeth could assist. Neither of the options called into question the importance of the work. On the contrary, they were concerned with how best to support the Archbishop and enable him to contribute most effectively. That said, the burden of the comments received was to emphasize the importance of the Archbishop’s sponsorship roles rather than to argue for an increased degree of direct personal involvement.
Of the two options, we think that exclusive consolidation on Church House is not practicable. Although there was some comment on the uncertain character of the division of function between the staffs at Lambeth and at Church House, and that more of the work should be regarded as centred on Church House, we conclude that the Archbishop will continue to need immediate advisory and facilitatory support. This will hold especially in his personal relations with other church leaders who will wish to make and develop personal contacts. The Archbishop will in addition need a briefing staff at hand which may represent him as necessary in more formal contacts, for example the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission.
However, while consolidation — which might logically extend to some of the functions of the Anglican Communion Office staff — does not seem right, there is certainly a case for greater manifest coordination in a situation where too much may depend on personal relations between individuals rather than on clear, purposive structures. We also think that more might be done to encourage the participation of other bishops in relations with other Churches. The Bishop of London, for example, has already acquired a role in relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, and it would seem possible to develop such initiatives in other cases too. In addition, as the Primates’ Meeting develops, it may be possible for its members to take lead roles in the same way.
Applying the general principle that the Archbishop should not become over—involved except in relation to matters to which only he can contribute, we recommend that:
a) The Archbishop should retain his Joint Presidential role in the case of Churches Together in England, but should feel free to delegate the maintenance of relations with other religious groupings to designated English bishops, in cooperation so far as it may be practicable with colleague members of the Anglican Communion. This will need to be a flexible strategy depending on the gifts and availability of particular bishops. However, it may over time be possible to expect particular diocesan posts to develop continuing responsibilities, just as a number of dioceses (for example, Salisbury with the Sudan) have forged continuing links with other Anglican Communion Provinces;
b) Designated staff should be retained in both Lambeth and Church House, but their respective portfolios should be kept under review. Broadly, the Secretary for Ecumenical Affairs should concentrate solely on those matters that require the Archbishop’s involvement because only he can address the issues concerned, including maintaining personal relations with other religious leaders. In principle, all other matters should be handled in Church House so far as possible, with the staff there acting in support of the Archbishop.
Both the domestic and the international backgrounds have been transformed in recent decades. Within the United Kingdom a more diverse religious culture has emerged which includes religions not previously present or, at least, not so prominently. Abroad, greater ease of communication and transport has been accompanied by a degree of political turmoil that has further reinforced the case for greater interfaith understanding and practical cooperation.
As an acknowledged world faith leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury must continue to play an active continuing role in interfaith relations. The requirement will no doubt reach well beyond the United Kingdom itself. For example, the Archbishop has received invitations to strengthen the Anglican presence in both Belgrade and Sofia to help reconcile Christians and Muslims. On a personal basis, he has established relations with the Dalai Lama. The global dynamic of interfaith relations emphasizes the extent to which Anglicanism has an international status, and how relations between faiths are no longer just a domestic matter for the Archbishop within the United Kingdom.
Although we have received relatively few comments on this role, no one has doubted its importance or that nothing domestically or globally will diminish its significance. In the United Kingdom, the Archbishop is already, of course, one of the Joint Presidents of the Council of Christians and Jews, and it can be expected that other like bodies will develop in the United Kingdom over time in respect of the other principal faiths.
Moreover, recently there has been the growth of an innovative involvement of the interfaith community in secular affairs. Ways have been found to express a joint interest in global poverty reduction, and economic and social development. The Archbishop has spearheaded a joint initiative in these areas with the World Bank. It seems reasonable to expect that such calls upon the Archbishop will increase. Here again, however, it will be important to distinguish what the Archbishop may be able to give to the launch of new enterprises and the extent to which he should continue a personal involvement once they are in more routine motion. The canvas may change but the options for the extent of involvement remain in principle the same.
This role has not been controversial and its significance in the increasingly multicultural character of human society everywhere seems understood and accepted. We recommend that:
a) The Archbishop should retain a capacity at Lambeth to express and further his personal sponsorship of interfaith relations, but he should be sparing in extending his personal involvement when new initiatives such as the World Bank initiative have developed beyond successful launch;
b) In so far as interfaith activity increases, the involvement of other bishops and the Anglican Communion should be considered on the same principles as should be applied in the case of ecumenical relations.
It is unlikely that many national and international figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have had to make their way for so long with such modest levels of assistance. For long Archbishops had only their chaplains to help. Randall Davidson (Archbishop 1903-28, and who had himself served as chaplain 30 years before appointment) thought ‘it was an impossible job for one man’. It was said of William Temple (Archbishop 1942-5) that he did ‘the work of a Prime Minister with the staff of a Head Master’. A recent observer has pointed out:
Never has the chair of Augustine been so widely respected or have the responsibilities of the occupant been so vast. There is no reason to believe that this will suddenly alter. [footnote 5]
Gradually, Lambeth Palace — while it retained, and retains still, many of the intimate characteristics of a court — developed a modest advisory staff in response to the growth of particular roles, for example as described at Chapter 8 in the case of ecumenism. The present staffing structure is set out in Appendix C. The most senior staff member is the Bishop at Lambeth, designated, as were his recent predecessors, ‘Chief of Staff’.
The December Consultation Paper did not address these questions directly, although we had sought and did receive views on them throughout. While some concern was occasionally expressed about the way in which staffing had developed, no one suggested that the Archbishop should not retain a sufficient personal staff at Lambeth Palace or that the most advanced form of consolidating the National Church Institutions (for example, by locating all support for the Archbishop in Church House) would make a Lambeth Staff redundant. We agree. The Archbishop is not a conventional chief executive running a business. Rather, he carries out functions that are unique to his occupancy of his See. They require him to exercise roles of religious leadership not only in England and in practice in the United Kingdom, but also in the world. The branches of the National Church Institutions in Church House and under the Church Commissioners, on the other hand, though indispensable to the life of the Church of England and vital in their own way to the support of the Archbishop, are primarily focused on functions in England or, at most, the United Kingdom. By themselves, therefore, they cannot also comprehend the full extent of the Archbishop’s functions or substitute for what must be done under the Archbishop’s own hand. That is why the Archbishop needs his own press officer as well as his own policy advisers.
As to the size of the Lambeth staff, it has not been our function to conduct a staff inspection in order to comment in detail on exactly how the work should be undertaken. Rather, as we see it, our role is to consider what should be the objectives of providing support for the Archbishop at Lambeth, and how provision should be judged.
The first question, therefore, is what kind of model should be conceived as the right one for Lambeth. Does the Archbishop, for example, need no more than the kind of immediate personal staff that is found in Whitehall Ministers’ Private Offices or in the headquarters of the chairmen of the larger companies. If not, what alternative model should prove the right guide? The Private Office model is adequate, after all, for the political heads of very large public undertakings, and it may be instinctively felt that it should be the right one for the Archbishop too.
Such comparisons may mislead. Private Offices of this kind rest on the support of strongly integrated structures directed to the decision-making role of the chief executive. In such cases the Private Office is the tip of a very large iceberg. The Private Office may be small simply because the rest of the organization is attuned to giving direct support to its head. Indeed, most of the work undertaken comes upwards from within the organization.
An alternative model is to regard Lambeth as in practice a separate department of the Church of England, somewhat disguised as a purely personal staff. It clearly possesses many of the policy-making attributes of a stand-alone organization. The Archbishop has to find and express his own voice on many matters. On the other hand, his leadership functions are not carried out in a vacuum or without support from outside Lambeth. The Archbishop is no kind of autocratic figure but a leader in the service of others. Thus, in an episcopally led Church, he has important relations with the House of Bishops, and is himself ecclesiologically no more than a bishop. The Church of England is itself assembled together in the General Synod where the Archbishop of Canterbury, as everywhere else, listens as well as leads. He does so there, as in the Archbishops’ Council, with the Archbishop of York. The work of the Church of England and Lambeth is supported financially by the Church Commissioners, and long-term policy issues are worked on by the staff at Church House, covering a great range of subjects that feed directly not only into the legislative work of the Synod but also the political life of the nation through episcopal membership of the House of Lords.
What Lambeth has to support is not, therefore, a function of executive direction or political control. Rather, it has to support a world religious leader who stands at the centre of a network of extraordinarily wide and varied functions where his most powerful tools are not some uncontested fiat but the authority that flows from the exertion of moral influence supported by the life of the Church of England in all its manifestations in England and by that of the Anglican Communion abroad. This leader needs access to the best advice that may be obtained. The sources of that advice should remain as transparent as possible. He must not become a prisoner of institutional self-interest. The Archbishop must have a capacity to reflect and decide for himself. This requirement will become easier to discharge the more the Archbishop is able to delegate roles to senior colleagues.
If the model is neither the private office nor the department, then what should it be? As we see it, the Archbishop will need staff who between them are capable of addressing each of the main areas of responsibility. He will require a capability to coordinate the work of this staff not only internally but also with other established bodies such as the other National Church Institutions and the Anglican Communion Office. He will need to be confident that his staff can muster the best policy advice available in a fashion which is timely, mediated as necessary with other interested parties, and serviceable for use.
Under present arrangements these tests seem better satisfied in some respects than others. The Lambeth staff has grown incrementally over a very long period and with few opportunities for standing back to take stock, so this is not surprising. New Archbishops at first depend, perhaps too much, upon what they inherit. In no modern cases can incoming Archbishops have felt themselves adequately prepared for what they were being asked to undertake. Even the busiest and most active bishop in the largest diocese in England would have had no rounded, let alone complete, experience of the Archbishop’s roles. Moreover, the whole life of priests properly biases them to personal involvement and personal action. Instinctively, this leads to regarding delegation as abdication or a refusal of that personal assumption of responsibility that is at the root of their vocation. But Archbishops cannot do everything themselves, nor should they. If they try, they are bound to fail — themselves and, more importantly, others. This means delegating and always accompanying delegation with full and clear authority.
Where Lambeth works well at present, it works very well indeed. There is a talented senior staff backed up by industrious and cheerful assistance at all levels. Morale is clearly high, and the household atmosphere of the Palace is conducive to friendly and cooperative working. But its incremental growth has created a lack of systems with some quite serious disadvantages. Thus, all the senior staff retain equal access to the Archbishop, and there is no strong coordination between functions in the Palace, or between the Palace and outside but related functions like those in Church House or the Anglican Communion Office. Although not all outside complaints about lack of coordination should be taken at face value, their existence shows that some fences may need to be mended. Problems of coordination within Lambeth have been voiced freely and — as the immediately following paragraph shows — constructively by the staff who see the Review as an opportunity to address continuing problems, some of which have manifested themselves as difficulties in managing the Archbishop’s diary.
The principle of coordination has never been in question. There has, however, been some perplexity over the years about how best it should be carried out. For some years now there has been a post of ‘Bishop at Lambeth’ designated as ‘Chief of Staff’. Whilst this initiative undoubtedly improved day to day management at the Palace and has protected the Archbishop from unnecessary involvement in detail, it has not yet evolved into the kind of strong coordinating post that now seems desirable. The present Bishop at Lambeth has recommended change in that direction, and observed that the post does not have to be episcopal. We favour a Chief of Staff to run Lambeth, with strong administrative ability and experience. Such a background may be easier in practice to find among lay men and women, though there need be no rule to that effect.
Coordination does not take place satisfactorily simply because its principle is accepted or a post with an appropriate job title is created. It has to be made to happen by putting into place and enforcing adequate procedures whose sense is accepted by those to whom they apply. Effective delegation empowers others to undertake work that will not be accomplished otherwise though without diminishing the role of the delegater. Similarly, effective coordination both avoids overlooking what should be included and, more positively, promotes added value through joint collaborative working. The latter benefits have yet to be entirely secured, and we make recommendations later accordingly.
Although there has been no evidence seriously arguing that the Archbishop should have no, or only minimal, staff at Lambeth, there have been concerns voiced about the staff’s size and an alleged tendency for it to grow constantly. Even if the facts do not support a notion of uncontrolled growth, the concern is understandable. It is shared by the Archbishop and the Bishop at Lambeth who are well aware that Lambeth should in this and in all other ways observe exacting standards.
The support required by the Archbishop from his staff is certain to become more substantial and more diverse. Senior members of the Archbishop’s staff are already required to maintain contact with senior people, often major public figures, both within the United Kingdom and beyond. The Archbishop operates on the world scene as no other member of the Church of England. Without attempting to assess individual posts at Lambeth or their number, we would emphasize that the calibre of senior staff at Lambeth Palace needs to be kept at the highest quality. This needs to be reflected throughout the staff planning and recruitment processes, and will clearly have an impact on salary levels.
So far as funding is concerned, the Church Commissioners have told us that they have always tried to assist the Archbishop to meet the running costs of identified staffing requirements. It is possible that the post-Turnbull reforms have some way to work through in so far as the coordination of funding and human resource considerations are concerned. Plainly, the Archbishop would expect the same disciplines as apply to staffing matters generally in the National Church Institutions to apply equally at Lambeth Palace. This will be a necessary step to help reassure potential critics, and we imagine that it is something upon which Professor Mellows and his colleagues will wish to comment when their study of the support for bishoprics is extended to the Lambeth and Bishopthorpe Palaces.
We have, like others, referred to the household character of Lambeth. Regarded often as a strength, we have not taken it for granted. Living over the shop is not an unmixed blessing for Archbishops, or always perhaps for the staff who work there, and whether or not the latter also live on the premises. Work cannot easily be left behind. There is sometimes an uneasy division between private and public space. The Archbishop’s personal accommodation is quite limited, and would need to be enlarged for a successor with a young family. However, over and beyond subjective considerations and the physical attributes of the accommodation, there is the question of principle: should Archbishops continue to be required to live at the Palace?
If anything, we felt at the beginning that they should not. Society’s notions of the inviolability of family privacy have if anything intensified in recent times. Would it not be better, therefore, for the Archbishop to live privately near, but not in, the Palace? Having considered matters, we have come to the conclusion that there should be no change. It would be costly to buy an adequate property in central London, and that purchase would not be balanced by the value of the amount of accommodation released in the Palace.
But to our minds the dominant and decisive considerations concern the character of the life expressed by the Archbishop. It is inevitably a public life during his period of office, and the sense he can give of entertaining as he does in his home is undoubtedly important to his guests and all those who visit the Palace. It is also important to the staff. But the religious life of the Chapel at Lambeth is the crucial consideration. Whilst the balance of considerations may be perceived differently in future, we have no hesitation in concluding now that there should be no change.
One matter, on the other hand, where change is certainly needed is in the arrangements for the reception of new Archbishops. There is usually a considerable period — six months or so — between the succession being announced and the new incumbent arriving. The Archbishop designate immediately becomes the focus of intense media attention. It is highly unlikely that his experience will have prepared him for the onslaught, or for the arrival of an enormous amount of additional correspondence. Dr Carey’s experience was that the only extra support he received was indirect — the Royal Mail increased its staff at the Wells Post Office. This isolation should obviously be avoided in future. The interval between announcement and arrival must be used to familiarize the successor with the functions that he will be undertaking. There must be adequate induction planning and support conceived as an integral part of the Church of England’s processes for the appointment of a successor from the moment the incumbent Archbishop decides to retire.
We recommend that:
a) The work of the Lambeth Palace staff should in future be coordinated by a Chief of Staff with authority to ensure that policy preparation is fully coordinated within the Palace and between the Palace and the National Church Institutions, the Anglican Communion Office and Bishopthorpe;
b) To that end, the Chief of Staff should establish more collective working methods (for example, the weekly senior staff meeting, chaired perhaps monthly by the Archbishop) where policy work is debated and coordinated. The objectives should be clarity in long-term planning, and clear and effective lines of communication;
c) The Chief of Staff should be responsible for overall staff and resource management at Lambeth Palace and for the oversight of remaining Metropolitical business and should be directly responsible to the Archbishop for the management of the Archbishop’s diary;
d) The occupant of the post should be a person (probably lay) with considerable private or public sector management experience, a track record of achievement, and high intelligence and energy. It follows that that person should be paid at a commensurate level;
e) The size and deployment of the Lambeth staff should (bearing in mind its special functions, and subject to any conclusions of Professor Mellows and his colleagues) be managed with respect to the same principles that are applied to staff in the National Church Institutions generally;
f) It should be a policy goal to delegate tasks from Lambeth to elsewhere unless their discharge requires the personal attention of the Archbishop, or has particular and immediate implications for his office;
g) The Archbishop should continue to be housed in Lambeth Palace;
h) There should be a carefully constructed and authoritative planning team (probably run by the Secretary General to the Archbishops’ Council or, when in post, the new style Lambeth Chief of Staff) set up immediately when an incumbent Archbishop decides to retire — in order to prepare for announcing that decision and be responsible for assisting at all the following stages, and in particular with the induction (though not, of course, the appointment) of his successor, with the object of preparing him for the work ahead and to permit him to make informed choices about how he will address his ministry.
In an exercise like this there is a danger of the reviewing team losing sight of the wood for the trees. It will, therefore, be right to emphasize some concluding points to affirm the perspective that we have sought to maintain.
Leadership may take many forms. We have tried to keep before us the truth that the Archbishop of Canterbury is above all a spiritual leader. He may have many skills — administrative, political and diplomatic among others — but he is first and foremost a priest and bishop, and the ordering of his life must be such as to reflect this. He is not the chief executive officer of a national and international corporation. As has already been noted, he is a chief pastor, caring for his people, nurturing them with word and sacrament, and promoting the mission and unity of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. He is to give leadership in the Church’s prophetic task of proclaiming the purposes of God in the affairs of nation and world.
It follows that the measures that we have recommended are not to be regarded as an end in themselves. They will be useless if they are not seen, as we have tried to see them, as designed to liberate and empower — not only the Archbishop and those who work most immediately with him, but also the whole of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop needs the space to make the most of the spiritual, prophetic and pastoral opportunities for leadership that his office gives its incumbent. This means freeing him to concentrate on the things that only he can best do and giving him the requisite range of choice over his time — time to pray, to read, to think, and thus to nurture the leadership roles in a self-reinforcing circle.
Archbishop George Carey — most closely supported by his wife, Eileen, in a special partnership — has addressed and vigorously pursued the opportunities of the office at a time of particularly rapid change at home and abroad. Precisely because he is conscious of the rate and extent of change, he has commissioned this Review. The work of the groups chaired by Lady Perry and by Professor Mellows will make important contributions in their areas of concern. We hope that we have been able to offer the present Archbishop, his successors and all who read this report a convincing analysis of the challenges that confront the See of Canterbury and some serviceable pointers to how those challenges can be met — now and in the future.
Rt Hon. the Lord Hurd of Westwell CH CBE, Chairman
Chief Emeka Anyaoku TC GCVO CON
Rt Hon. the Lord Fellowes GCB GCVO QSO
Mr Ewan Harper CBE
Mr David Lammy MP
Lady Mayhew of Twysden OBE
Dr Eunice Okorocha
Rt Revd Dr Keith Rayner AO
Mr R. M. Morris CVO
Miss Georgina Seward
This summary is derived from material commissioned from a group of present and former Provincial registrars and from material separately submitted by the Faculty Office. Regard has also been had to a note prepared by the Faculty Office for the group chaired by Professor Mellows under the Archbishops’ Review of Bishops’ Needs and Resources.
The Archbishop is diocesan bishop of Canterbury. At present, under a scheme of delegation made under the Dioceses Measure 1978, he has made an extensive, and revocable, delegation to the suffragan Bishop of Dover, also styled the Bishop in Canterbury. For all day-to-day intents and purposes, the Bishop of Dover acts for diocesan affairs in the Archbishop’s place, though the Archbishop remains Bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury with ultimate pastoral authority. The Bishop of Dover is appointed under the procedure applicable to suffragan sees, and the Crown Appointments Commission is not involved. However, the special position of the Bishop of Dover is recognized in the fact that he is the only suffragan bishop who sits in the House of Bishops by right of appointment. A limited number of other suffragans may obtain membership only by election from amongst all suffragans.
This role is described formally in Canon C 17 ‘Of Archbishops’ which applies also to the Archbishop of York. The styles of the two Archbishops have been distinguished since the fourteenth century to describe the Archbishop of Canterbury as ‘Primate of All England’ and the Archbishop of York as ‘Primate of England’.
Within his province, it falls to the Archbishop as Metropolitan to confirm the elections of diocesan bishops and to be the principal consecrator of every bishop. He chairs the Crown Appointments Commission which is responsible for submitting two names to the Prime Minister for any vacant diocesan bishopric, and the Archbishop presides at the meeting considering vacancies in his own province. (In law, bishops are appointed by the Crown. By convention, since 1976 the Prime Minister receives the two names before submitting his own recommendation to the Queen.)
Every Act of the provincial Convocation requires his assent to have force. He appoints the senior officials of the Court of Arches, the Provincial court of the Southern Province to which appeals from the diocesan consistory courts are directed. Overseas clergy must have permission from the Archbishop before they can be licenced to any appointment by a diocesan bishop in his Province: and the Archbishop of Canterbury, acting jointly with the Archbishop of York, also has certain responsibilities for deciding whether a particular overseas Church is in communion with the Church of England. In addition, the Archbishop is the appellate authority in certain circumstances — for example, where a bishop has decided to depose from Holy Orders following a finding of guilt for an offence, or to withdraw licences from priests or lay readers. Some appellate responsibility (discharged normally through a legally qualified appointee) also arises from the Archbishop’s role as visitor to sundry — mostly academic — institutions.
Like all other bishops, and parochial clergy, the Archbishop should be regarded as a public authority, in respect of certain of his powers and functions, under the Human Rights Act 1998. In those cases where the Act applies, his powers and functions need to be considered against the background of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has the right of crowning the Kings and Queens regnant of England. He is responsible for the Coronation Service and administers the oaths as required under the Coronation Oaths Act 1688.
By virtue of office, though not a peer, he is a Lord of Parliament with a seat in the House of Lords. Under the Act of Settlement 1701, aliens are prohibited from membership of the House of Lords. As defined by the British Nationality Act 1981, that prohibition does not apply to Commonwealth citizens, i.e. British citizens, Dependent Territory citizens, British Overseas citizens, British subjects or citizens of an independent Commonwealth country or, separately, to citizens of the Republic of Ireland. These provisions, coupled with issues surrounding allegiance and homage, have given rise to doubts whether those who are not also subjects of the Crown could become Archbishop of Canterbury.
As Primate, the Archbishop has certain other important national functions. His chairmanship of the Crown Appointments Commission has already been noted above. By office, he is Chairman of the Church Commissioners. He also chairs the Board of Governors,As Primate, the Archbishop has certain other important national functions. His chairmanship of the Crown Appointments Commission has already been noted above. By office, he is Chairman of the Church Commissioners. He also chairs the Board of Governors, though the Board may annually elect a Deputy Chairman in his place — usually the Archbishop of York or another senior Commissioner bishop. He is Joint President, with the Archbishop of York, of the General Synod and chairman of its Legislative Committee. Similarly, the two Archbishops are Joint Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council where the Archbishop of Canterbury presides unless he determines otherwise. He is also chairman of the Synod’s House of Bishops, though in this and other cases he shares the responsibilities in practice with the Archbishop of York.
At the Reformation certain Legatine functions were conferred upon the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533. Exercised almost entirely by the Faculty Office in the first two cases, these functions extend to the issue of Special Licences for marriage throughout England and Wales, the appointment and enrolment of Notaries Public in England and Wales, and the issue of the degrees known as ‘Lambeth degrees’.
In this case, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s formal legal powers are not only themselves extremely limited but they are also dwarfed by the position of leadership that he occupies in practice. This position has been described as pivotal rather than papal, and has to be seen in a context where a structure of 70 million adherents in 38 autonomous Provinces is still evolving. So slender is the underpinning of explicit legal provision that it has even been doubted how far, juridically, an Anglican Communion can be said to exist.
There are four so-called ‘Instruments of Unity’. They are:
In law, the Archbishop has, except in the very few cases where local constitutions allow for it, no power to intervene in the affairs of an Anglican Province outside England other than by the express invitation of the Province concerned. Discussions continue about whether and, if so, how this situation may be changed. Meanwhile, the Archbishop’s leadership is exercised as being primus inter pares so far as the other Primates are concerned.
Lambeth Palace Outline of current organisation
Anglican Consultative Council Financial Report
Lambeth Palace Suggested outline of organisation
1. See the recommendation at paragraph 3.87 of the report Working with the Spirit (Church House Publishing, May 2001) of the Review of the Operation of the Crown Appointments Commission, chaired by Lady Perry of Southwark.
2. For example we read an eloquent sermon, ‘Fly, eagle, fly’, preached on this theme in St Martins in the Fields, London, on 29 October 2000 by the Archbishop of Cape Town.
3. See the recommendation at paragraph 3.87 of the report Working with the Spirit (Church House Publishing, May 2001) of the Review of the Operation of the Crown Appointments Commission, chaired by Lady Perry of Southwark.
4. These audited accounts, prepared in accordance with the Charity Commission’s Statement of Recommended Practice, give a very full picture of the operations of the Anglican Communion Office and its staff of 16.
5. E. Carpenter and A. Hastings, Cantuar, 3rd edn, 1997, Part VIII, Ch. 2, Hastings, p. 559.