Updated Friday evening
As we reported earlier the Church of England’s House of Bishops met today to consider proposals to reform the CNC (Crown Nominations Commission) procedures for nominating diocesan bishops. The proposals are in paragraphs 12 to 14 of HB(24)30. They were accepted with one amendment (which did not alter the proposed change to the CNC procedures) by 27 votes to nine, with three abstentions.
The proposals and their background are summarised in a press release, which is copied below.
The House met in public and there is a report of their debate in the Church Times.
The CNC procedures are part of the standing orders of General Synod. The bishops’ proposed changes must be agreed by the Synod, which next meets in February 2025. Changes to standing orders can come into effect immediately.
Friday evening update
The Church Times has published a further article House of Bishops’ CNC debate rouses ire of central members.
Press release
Bishops back proposals to simplify nomination process for diocesan bishops
18/09/2024
House of Bishops supports proposals to simplify the Crown Nominations Commission process
The House of Bishops has given its support to proposed changes to the process of nominating future diocesan bishops to the Crown, to simplify the process and help enable a broad representation.
The House – which is made up of the diocesan bishops and other senior bishops in the Church of England – agreed to ask General Synod to consider changing the rules governing how Crown Nominations Commissions (CNCs), which nominate future diocesan bishops, operate.
It follows two cases in the last year in which CNCs were unable to reach agreement to fill vacancies for new bishops.
When a see becomes vacant a CNC gathers to consider possible candidates and put forward a name to the King through the Prime Minister. Once the nomination has been approved by the King, the new bishop is announced by Downing Street. (Note: a ‘see’ is the area of a bishop’s authority and jurisdiction.)
In each case the CNC is made up of a combination of representatives from the local diocese and a group of “central members”, elected from the General Synod to represent the national Church.
Following the two recent cases in which the CNC was unable to appoint (for new Bishops of Carlisle and Ely), the Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, who chairs the Advisory Group for Appointments and Vocations, suggested a series of changes including to the voting threshold required to make an appointment.
Under the current Standing Orders, at least two thirds of the members of a CNC must support a nomination before it goes forward. That includes any who decide to abstain.
However, as Bishop Sarah explains in a paper to the House, currently, with 14 members on a CNC, this means 10 members must agree, meaning the threshold is in fact above 71 per cent.
Bishop Sarah proposed:
Speaking at the bishops’ meeting in Oxford today, she said: “There is a lack of diversity on the CNC, including gender, race, and theology, which has led to a loss of trust in the process.
“Restoring trust will require the process to be competent, consistent, full of integrity, and compassionate. Ultimately, we need to restore confidence in this discernment process under God.”
The House approved a motion welcoming the recommendations by 27 votes to nine, with three abstentions.
Notes to editors
The motion agreed by the House was:
‘That this House, regretting the difficulties in the recent CNC processes as set out in HB(24)30 welcome the recommendations as set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 of that paper and request that work be undertaken to bring the proposals to Synod.’
Understandable they want to do something, But I think they’re focusing on the wrong thing. The frequency of CNCs needs to be fixed so that we don’t need to wait so long. I fear this may lead to poor appointments. (Also a greater diversity of members surely makes it a bit less likely to get an agreement.. unless you believe that people can put aside the bias of “people like me” – in which case it’s not needed anyway ….. ) As was said elsewhere, not appointing after 1 round of interviews isn’t too surprising. Just focusing on making things… Read more »
“There is a lack of diversity on the CNC, including gender, race, and theology, which has led to a loss of trust in the process.” If Bishop Sarah is thinking of the General Synod members of CNC then it has to be remembered that these members were all elected in a free vote by all the Synod members. I would like to think that those votes were largely cast to choose those of the greatest integrity and competence rather than on any partisan basis.
The lack of diversity is certainly true of diocesan reps in the process. I too would like to think otherwise of all this.
It seems sensible to remove the secret voting and to ignore abstentions. If the participants are praying for God’s guidance in the decision making process then they should be confident to make their vote openly. Similarly a 71% threshold for a decision is unreasonable. I’m more concerned about the archbishops being given an additional vote in the case of a stalemate; they already have a considerable involvement in fielding candidates etc. before the CNC meets. As another contributor has said; another round of interviews is better than a mediocre appointment first time around. What is of more concern is the… Read more »
If my maths is correct, a 60% threshold for a successful nomination would require 9 of the 14 votes to be in favour. This is a reduction of just 1 from the current requirement. Does this mean that some potential appointments have failed by just 1 vote?
And it would be hard for a little old lady in a pew to believe that each participant’s view of the 100% accuracy of their personal version of discernment would leave no room for reconsideration or compromise over such a tiny margin .
God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform….
Or by just 2. If you add an archbishop double vote to and 8/14 then that makes 9, and if 9 is now enough… We will never know the details, but I think if the 5 or 6 blocking are all from the diocese I’d be very concerned about over ruling them. If they are all central members, I think less concerned but perhaps I should be just as concerned. Of it’s a mix then it feels more “ok” If I make a big assumption that archbishops have been saying yes every time, then to only get 8 supporting means… Read more »
There is a good point here which should not be lost sight of. That in an appointment by a smaller majority than 2/3, there should be at least 3 of the 6 diocesan reps, i.e. the diocesan reps have not collectively voted against that candidate. That’s a slightly lower hurdle than you have suggested, that 4 of the 6 should have supported that candidate.
Don’t forget the change of rules on abstention. In the current set-up abstentions effectively count as a vote against: you need 10 of the 14 in favour to appoint. So, if you had 9 in favour, 2 against, and 3 abstentions, that would not constitute a 2/3 majority. If abstentions now don’t count one way or the other, things get different. 6 of the 14 being against would be enough to guarantee blocking an appointment. If there are 4 against, they’ll be outvoted as long as there aren’t more than 4 abstentions (ie 6 votes in favour). The implication is… Read more »
As a Presbyterian outsider, I am slightly bemused by the number of abstentions in CofE bodies. In this case one would have thought a vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ the proposals on a subject closely related to bishops would have been clear-cut. It would be interesting to know if some bishops are regular abstainers. From comments elsewhere on TA about the present crop of bishops, perhaps there are some whose discernment faculties are somewhat impaired!
Abstaining in this context is different. This relates to the 14 members of CNC, so not the bishops (but does include the 2 archbishops) The voting process is (after interviews, and this is as described in standing orders); If you have 3 candidates then everyone gets a maximum of 2 names they can write down. They can choose 0 1 or 2 names. The votes are totaled and the candidate with the least is removed (you could start with 5 candidates and a max of 4 names … Eventually get to ) 2 candidates and a max of 1 name… Read more »
Actually was referring to the House of Bishops vote where 3 bishops abstained. Can’t even begin to make sense of CNC voting!!
Not sure. Ely failed by two. So under the new proposals, nine would have been needed, not 10, and the presiding archbishop could have exercised his additional vote.
Surely you can’t know that – as proceedings of the CNC are meant to be held in confidence.
Also failed by 2 sounds like another way of saying just under half (6/14 just under 7/14) didn’t feel they could appoint.
It should be left to General Synod to decide what ‘has led to a loss of trust in the process.’ This may be a mere proposal from the House of Bishops, but is being presented as the fruit of deep reflection and jumps too soon to solutions. A pity that so many bishops have fallen in line with it. A smaller majority would have been a signal to General Synod that there is more work to do. As has been said, there was ‘nothing to see’ when the Hereford and Oxford CNCs didn’t appoint. But now it is somehow urgent.… Read more »
After the CNCs of Carlisle and Ely the Bishop of London distributed a press release stating that The Church had forfeited the confidence of the bishops and could win it back only by redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier in that case for the bishops to dissolve The Church and create another? with apologies to Bertolt Brecht “Head Office” already prepares the list of potential candidates and has a huge amount of sway over the process; if the representatives of the wider church don’t like the candidates they propose, the answer can’t be “just give Head Office more power.”… Read more »
In my view, we are now reaping the harvest of the many years of the Boddingtonisation of the selection process for preferment. Like so much in the C of E, it is an endlessly repeating ever decreasing spiral in terms of breadth of all kinds of diversity (including the one everyone seems to forget – disability – do we have any Diocesans who self identify as disabled or deaf?) and even approach to leadership. The process selects a certain kind of person for inclusion on the magic list, and then when those people find their way into a post, they… Read more »
With his ninth consistory in 10 years of his pontificate, Pope Francis will lock down his influence on the College of Cardinals for the next conclave, considering the overwhelming majority of cardinals will have been created by him. – Andrea Gagliarducci from https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254767/analysis-how-to-interpret-pope-francis-choice-of-new-cardinals
It’s harder to do in the Church of England but I am willing to bet that some within the Church of England hierarchy admire Francis’ achievements in this regard.
Intense, extreme even, politics in the Roman Catholic Church. John Paul II changed the voting to allow the conclave to secure a simple majority if no candidate had obtained two-thirds after 33 rounds of voting. Benedict reversed the change. I think he felt that factions could simply sit out the voting and wait until they could get ‘their man’ in with a 50% majority. Sound familiar?!
I think it’s been said here on TA before that “Head Office” does not determine the list of potential candidates. That is, if I have understood correctly, entirely within the remit of the two archbishops and the twelve elected members of the CNC, not the secretariat.
Thanks Nick, there are lots of gaps in my understanding of this area. By “Head Office”; I was not referring to the secretariat specifically, but the bishops in general and the archbishops in particular. Having said that, my understanding is that the Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments maintains something similar to the Preferment List or Senior Appointments List and everyone on it has lengthy interviews with him.
Yes, I think the secretary does maintain a list of those considered ready for episcopal ministry. But my point is that, as I understand it, the members of the CNC are not required to select names from that list. They are free to invite other people, not on the list, into the process.
The process is pretty transparent, at least to the CNC members. Two lists are maintained now, a Ready Now Diocesan Bishop (RNDB) list and a Ready Now Suffragan Bishop list. Usually diocesan bishops suggests names for preferment in which case there is an episcopal ministry discernment process, which culminates in a bishop other than the candidate’s own assisting the process. As to the CNC, it sees the list, but is also able to suggest other names; the wider consultation in the diocese conducted by the Secretaries also keeps a list of suggested names which is available. Although the presiding archbishop and… Read more »
Andrew Goddard’s take on this, to be found on Psephizo, is well worth a read.
https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/choosing-bishops-a-failure-to-discern/
Definitely worth reading. Andrew has produced a detailed analysis of what seems to be happening and I believe tried to be as objective as possible. One can only hope the bishops will have the wisdom to bring each element of the proposals forward fo separate votes. Some such as the removal of secret voting (although this has implications for candidates knowing who has voted against them or for them) and the removal of abstainers from the voting thresholds which would avoid people sitting on the fence (we have seen a lot of this amongst the bishops during the LLF debates)… Read more »
Certainly I hope for separate votes with debate.
The more I think about it – the more I think removing abstaining is bad. It should be a possible outcome of discernment that “no one” is suitable; and not force people to vote for someone (or force them to vote for a losing candidate to try and force a non-majority).
As has been said before – – if only they had second and third-rounds of interviews within a reasonable time-frame; then failing to appoint wouldn’t be seen as such a big thing
Simon, General Synod will not be asked to vote on the changes as a package. Procedurally, as the HoB paper HB(24)30 explains at paragraph 15 ‘Next steps’; ‘Subject to the views of the House of Bishops, a formal proposal would be developed for consultation with the CNC Central Members at their next meeting with the Archbishops in November, before being submitted to the Standing Order [sic] Committee for them to report to General Synod in February 2025.’ This is because, as paragraph 5(a) of the paper states, the proposals require changes to the General Synod standing orders, which is where… Read more »
David very many thanks for clarifying the process Much appreciated Simon
Personally I think the first step should be to remove the secret ballot so that accurate voting patterns could be gathered over 2 or 3 years and a full proposal introduced based on facts – but then I obviously am not bishop material.
Except it would still be secret – – because the proceedings of any CNC are meant to be kept in confidence. If the voting records were published then everything may as well be.
The heading to the Press Release, ‘Bishops back proposals to simplify nomination process for diocesan bishops’, and the first line, ‘House of Bishops supports proposals to simplify the Crown Nominations Commission process‘, are disingenuous, and are indicative of a ‘spin’ put on the report by CofE comms department to make the proposals appear sensible and therefore acceptable. There is no element of simplification in the proposals; rather, controversial changes seeking to avoid any future CNC failing to agree a nomination. It would be interesting to know the name of the author of the press release, but I don’t expect it… Read more »
It’s hard to see this as anything other than a power grab by the Archbishops under the pretext of increasing diversity (and the analysis by Andrew Goddard in this thread does indicate that the narrative about a lack of women being appointed isn’t completely accurate). A more diverse episcopal House (and College) is a really important goal. I’m not sure you can get there by this mechanism without addressing the failures of the bishops on safeguarding, on LLF process, on “strategy”. And the bullying that takes place within the House. All these “reforms” will do is give more power to… Read more »
On this one we agree, Pete. Those things plus a thorough overhaul of how people are identified and nominated for the preferment list, what happens to them once they are on there and waiting to be included on a long list, and even though I think the current regime at the Wash House infinitely preferable to what has gone before, reducing the influence of one person (or team of people) to act as gatekeeper to inclusion on either list once nominated.
I think I can reassure you, the nomination isn’t as tightly controlled as you may think. The current system means any of the 14 members can nominate names for short listing, each can say 1 they feel strongly enough about that must be considered by others for short listing. Plus many others for other consideration. This is then compiled into a medium-long list, some of the optionals are removed by the archbishops at this stage if there are too many to consider sensibly, but none of the “first choice” names are removed… So you can easily have 15 to 25… Read more »
Thanks Tim, that’s a useful reminder on process. But unfortunately I hear a lot of reliable things in a lot of places, and have done over many of the Boddington years. All of it paints a somewhat less democratic process in practice.
I’m read Andrew Goddard’s article and was left very taken aback at the convoluted process- though I suppose it is supposed to be a ‘discernment’ not a job interview …. And no politics please- we are the Church of England. Maybe the surprise should be that a bishop is so often chosen. But the picture he paints does look exactly like a power grab by the Senior Bishops- and whatever happens – be it through majority voting, PR or any other tortuous process of Archiepiscopal power and double counting they can come up with, there must remain the possibility of… Read more »
I wonder whether we might regard the proposals not so much as an episcopal power grab, but more a recognition that the view of the majority is being frustrated by a minority. The bishops perhaps aim to throw their weight behind the majority. The real problem with this is, perhaps, the Law of Unintended Consequences. Rules about minorities are put in place to protect everyone — any group might be a minority sometimes, and it is right that they cannot be overridden. And yet dioceses are being stopped from receiving a new bishop. How to square the circle? The longterm… Read more »
I think the review is based on 2 assumptions 1) that a failure to appoint is likely a result of “bad actors” on the panel in one sense of another. Someone should have been appointed . 2) that the elected members are not to be trusted… The fact 7out of 10 central members are female is no defense against claims of anti-women feelings, Their seems to be a distrust of central members, and an assumption that dioceses don’t know what they’re doing when appointing their 6. …. I think the first assumption is so obviously faulty it beggars belief. Why… Read more »
Increasing autocracy is a common response to a breakdown of trust. It rarely ends well.
I agree with Pete (there you are, did you have to wait over 50 years for me to say that, Pete?). I’ve taken part in appointment committees in many different contexts but not the CNC I should stress. Usually, at the end of the process, the aim is to arrive at a consensus so that everybody feels that the candidates and the committee members have all had a fair hearing, and therefore that the final recommendation is a fair result. There may well be straw votes or score sheets (against defined criteria) along the way, of course, and these are… Read more »
Some good points. If some of the boards I used to advise had a particularly difficult decision to make they would ask me to chair the meeting. I had no vote, no horse in the race even, and my job was to facilitate. One thing that doesn’t seem to have been considered is getting someone independent to chair CNCs as a non-voting facilitator but I suspect that the idea of that is utterly alien to most of the bishops. I get the sense that in the CofE a chair is the most senior person present rather than being chosen for… Read more »
Independent chairs have been considered, although only in central members’ meetings I think. They are mandatory for vacancies in Canterbury and York, and are appointments of the Prime Minister. Whether or not they should have a vote (if the principle is extended to all diocesan CNCs) is another matter. Joelle Warren who chaired the York CNC was brilliant. Lord Luce chaired Canterbury. It was not an easy CNC, and the next Canterbury CNC is predicted to be challenging. I suggest Downing Street and Church House make a start on a list of names now. The benchmark for Canterbury is Baroness… Read more »
Just making the chair non-voting would be a good start. It’s never quite clear — in whatever context, not just this one — what “independent” really means.
Well, there would not be many takers for being non-voting. The Canterbury and York chairs are actually not cast in the role of ‘independent’ in terms of being only facilitators.
Really? In fact my suggestion was that the archbishop should continue to chair, but should not have a vote. I can’t imagine that being expected to chair committees in a non-voting capacity would make people be reluctant to become an archbishop. Or perhaps it would?
Changing the whole political mindset of the CNC process seems to be the real need here, and the proposals do seem to go in the wrong direction.
I genuinely think the (almost only) thing that’s needed is to have more rounds of CNC. I think it’s easy to assume it’s political from the outside. Also on the flip-side; we vote on people to the CNC – it shouldn’t be surprising that some believe their type of Anglicanism is ‘more in line with Jesus’ than other types; and maybe they think that makes a candidate better. I think all sides have a tendency to think like that. Careful voting of the CNC members is important to pick members who can welcome broad views… but of course people can… Read more »
Bernard, thank you for the splendid, structured comments.
‘….failures of the bishops on safeguarding, on LLF process, on “strategy”. And the bullying that takes place within the House.’ Why the CEO is still in post is beyond me.
He knows where the bodies are buried
In any – literally any – normal organisation with what a normal person would describe as normal accountability, he’d have been long gone by now – for the safeguarding shambles alone.