Editorial: In choosing a leader, the Church chooses its future

The deadlock inside the electoral college tasked with choosing a new Archbishop of Canterbury has been said to reveal that the available candidates are not good enough or that the appointments system is dysfunctional. But that is not the problem. The reason is that there is no real agreement within the Church as to what its role should be in a largely secular society at the start of the 21st century.

In the past, the Church has divided along the tribal lines of evangelicals, liberals and Anglo-Catholics. The totemic issues which mark its dividing lines – over the acceptability of gay relationships, women priests and now women bishops – are completely settled for the vast majority of the population. Interestingly, there are suggestions that they are now being settled in the Church too; though conservative evangelicals remain implacably opposed to modern views on gender and sexuality, the terms in which they debate have subtly shifted in ways which suggest that it is only a matter of time before liberal tolerance prevails.

Instead, there is a new division inside the Church. It is between those who want a safe pair of hands to keep Anglicans together long enough for the old differences to dissolve and those who want someone who will reimagine the institution for the modern age with a bolder vision of purpose. The choice has significant implications for the rest of society. Read more

Read also
Archbishop panel split over Church's future
The 16 people selecting the next Archbishop of Canterbury

The editorial's use of the term "electoral college" to describe the Crown Nominations Commission is inaccurate and misleading. The commission does not have a final say in the choice of archbishop. It recommends two candidates to the prime minister who acting on the behalf of the Queen appoints one of the candidates as archbishop, the candidate of his choosing. The Queen might make history by refusing her assent to the appointment but that is highly unlikely.