Thinking Anglicans

Susannah – Lay Canons. Cathedrals have these.

Because most cathedrals now appoint lay canons and, although in the real world it would seem unusual to call them ‘canon’, in General Synod canons are given the title canon, even if they are not ordained.

For the last fifteen years or so it has been possible for the new constitution of any individual English Cathedral to make provision for the appointment of a small number of lay Canons. Because most Bishops are blind to the deep ambiguity of using these to recognise particular dedicated service to diocesan and national committees (very visible to them) rather than particular sacrificial service to local communities and parishes (less consistently visible to them) it is not a surprise that several of those active enough to be realistic candidates for election to the Archbishops’ Council are among the genuinely valued… Read more »

Susannah, an honorary canonry may be awarded to anyone who has given long/meritorious/distinguished service to the church (often/usually at diocesan level). The recipient need not be a member of the CofE or even an Anglican. There are a good many representatives of other denominations. They are usually referred to as “Ecumenical Canons”.

Because honorary (as opposed to Residentiary) canons may be lay or ordained it emphasises the need for correct usage in “official” documentation e.g. “The Revd. Canon John Smith”, “Canon Mrs. Jane Smith”, “Canon Prof. Joe Bloggs” etc.

What a lovely country of titles and humbug we live in!

isn’t it time for the Church of England to abandon all these honorific titles for clergy and laity? The title Canon could then be properly restricted to a residentiary member of a Cathedral Chapter, to be relinquished with the post.

A mixed bag – though I believe both Prolocutors have inclusive views re LGBT, so that’s encouraging.

On a different topic:

The report of the Dioceses Commission reads as though there will be / is a rapid expansion of the number of bishops.

Has anyone recently looked at the ratios between senior and other clergy, and between both and the number of lay members? This was once a stock question in any examination of the state of the CofE.

I guess one immediate consequence of attempts to revitalise the church is to appoint more managers (as a broad description). Is this a good thing? And do you think they will be evaluated by results?

Looks a pretty balanced grouping – some definite conservatives, some definite liberals, and some probably in-between.

Father Ron, while he’s not a fan of the term, as a passionate supporter of women’s ministry and nuanced biblical interpretation, Ian Paul’s firmly in what’s usually known as the open evangelical camp. In Anglican terms, you couldn’t get more mainstream.

As far as I recall, lay canons were a creature of the Howe Report into the management of cathedrals, which led to Section 4 (2) (b) of the Cathedrals Measure 1999 under which the dean and residentiaries are supplemented by an additional cadre of between two and seven members, two thirds of whom must be lay. The object was, presumably, to add an element of professional expertise in financial or management questions, and to forestall a repetition of the acrimony that occurred at Lincoln between Dr Brandon Jackson and Canon Rex Davies. So, I believe that they are a relatively… Read more »

Paul Bagshaw – where are you seeing about a rapid expansion in the number of bishops please? Bradford until 2014 had its own diocese. This has now been dissolved. Strangely, there is still a bishop of Bradford, but he is now only an Area Bishop and Bradford has become just an “Episcopal Area”. Five of these “Episcopal Areas” form the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales under the Diocesan Bishop of Leeds. So there are three layers of management, Area Bishop, Diocesan Bishop and Archbishop, all within the county of Yorkshire. As if this were not enough, the Diocese… Read more »

I am appalled at the election of some people who are more than conservative, positively anti-progressive, and in some cases so anti-gay as to make me feel very insecure.

Why are the voters doing this ? Are there a majority of such people, in the corridors of influence in the Church’s bureaucracy ?

It makes me want to have less and less to do with this Church. I have to remind myself they are not typical of many grass-roots anglicans !

Such as my local friary – ‘a place where prayer is valid.’

Simon, yes and no. The electorate isn’t huge, certainly, but you’re speaking as though the voters (ie General Synod members) have no electoral backing themselves. There are 2 clergy and 2 laity places on the AC, so to get elected you basically need over a third of the vote to get over the line (discounting the small number of ‘non-forwarded’ votes when people get eliminated.) “45 votes” may sound small, but “1/3rd of the clergy General synod members” sounds a lot more demanding – and it is. Also, each of the GS voters need a decent proportion of their diocesan… Read more »

“But there are far more than 142 members of the house of clergy, in fact it is around 196 IIRC. So it’s not in fact 1/3 of the house that got these candidates elected.”

Which raises the question: “Why did over a quarter of the clergy on Genera Synod fail to cast a vote in this election?”

The concept of “Lay Canons” in the Anglican Communion was a colonial invention of the Diocese of Melbourne in 1869 when its synod passed a Cathedral Act, that included both laity and clergy as members of the Cathedral Chapter. This reflected the principle of lay involvement in church governance adopted when the synod was itself created in 1856. (Sydney pipped Melbourne to the post in 1868 by including lay members of its Chapter, but didn’t term them as “Lay Canons” till much later.) As in synodical governance, the Church of England caught up a hundred years later.

Tobias, the election was for 2 places on the Archbishop’s Council, but everyone gets one (transferable) vote. The maths of it is that if you get over a third of the votes you get elected, since only one other person can get more than you – you’ll automatically be in the top two. That is a good question about why only about 75% voted. I certainly did. Maybe online voting could help. But I think the bigger point is that Ian Paul (whose voting figures Simon highlighted) is a respected figure who represents and articulates a substantial body of opinion… Read more »

Tobias: the Single Transferable Vote system is precisely designed to ensure that minority groups are represented. Otherwise a majority will likely win every vote, and a minority will be unrepresented. With STV if one place is to be filled you need more than half of the vote; if two places, more than a third; if three places, more than a quarter; and so on. (The “quota” is (number of votes plus 1) divided by (number of places plus 1).) And the voters specify the order in which their votes are transferred from one candidate to another. Transfer happens when a… Read more »

Thanks, Simon. That was what I meant, though I realize on rereading my earlier comment that the referent might be unclear. The English system does seem to ensure that minorities do get a chance at a seat. This is the first time I’ve read about the system, I see its strong point in giving seats to the [possibly] underrepresented. Thanks for the detailed explanation about the “transfers” as I wasn’t clear at all how that worked.