The debate and speculation has now moved on to who the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be. I think the one rule of thumb is that they will probably not be one of the people who have been identified as a potential successor, especially if they are seen to have been maneuvering for the role.
Although the attention is on the Archbishop of York, this is rarely seen as a stepping stone to the top job. A few years ago it was argued that a woman would not be the next Archbishop of Canterbury but I wonder if the mood will have changed and if so, someone like the Bishop of London begins to look like a real possibility.
There’s been some comments about how the next Archbishop probably won’t be an Evangelical because that experiment has been tried and seen to fail. This reasoning is a bit of a red herring on two counts. First, that whilst you have had Evangelicals they tend to be from the open/liberal evangelical wing rather than conservative evangelicals. Secondly, it isn’t that there has been an experiment, it’s that there tends to be an alternating arrangement of liberal then Evangelical. Hence in recent times Runcie was followed by Carey who was replaced by Williams and then by Welby. We are presumably due a more liberal Archbishop.
Indeed, noting that Welby didn’t so much cause his communion to split, as he has been accused of, as inherit an already divided church, it is fair to say that any problems are in the system not merely individuals. You might as well argue that the experiment of having men whose surname begins with W has been tried and failed. Ah well, I was a longshot for the post anyway.
Furthermore, it is practically impossible for a conservative evangelical to get appointed to a diocese let alone to Archbishop.
So comments from Evangelical Anglicans are telling. Ian Paul argues here that it doesn’t matter so much as to whether an Evangelical is appointed as whether or not the next Archbishop is one who upholds the doctrine of the church.
This is important because it suggests that despite protestations over the years, that the CofE is essentially Evangelical at heart/on paper in its 39 articles, this isn’t really the case. It raises questions about whether or not they are Evangelical or Anglican first. What is essential/of first importance.
Are Evangelical Anglicans willing to tolerate a situation where the leaders in their church are at best uncertain about things including that inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, Penal Substitution, Justification by faith alone, the historicity of the Gospels, etc?
This particularly matters because as I have argued before, the CofE isn’t just a network or association. You set yourself under the authority and sitting what is regarded as a church, as the congregation.
Evangelicals may wistfully hope that they can separate themselves off within a separate province under flying bishops but within the hierarchy, they still come under Canterbury’s authority.
Finally, I think if is worth considering what is at the heart of Church of England doctrine. At heart, it is about unity within the Church above all.
And this is why it should not matter to them who is at the top. Either they accept that the doctrine is unity and so, they need to accept that all else is secondary and live with whoever comes. They need to recognise though that the cost of unity within the church with those who do not hold to the things Evangelicals are supposed to hold as essential is by its nature at the cost of unity with believers outside of the CofE.
Or alternatively, and this is where I think they need to be, they need to come out. They need to recognise that red lines are always going to be crossed because the redline of true doctrinal orthodoxy was crossed long ago. Today’s disputes are all symptoms of that.
What though about those of us who are not Anglicans? Over the years, there have been great efforts to develop evangelical unity between Anglicans and non Anglicans. Yet, this often feels like a frustrating and fraught experience from the non-conformist side. Indeed, when non-conformists have gone beyond polite murmurings about praying for our Anglican brothers and sisters as they seek to be faithful, to critiquing and challenging, our contributions have been shut down as “unhelpful.”
I remember it being said that we use the language of being “brothers and sisters with our evangelical Anglican friends” but in reality, the relationship is more like one with a wealthy, distant uncle. However, I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that we are more like the third wheel on a date. We are constantly attempting to persuade our friend, the Anglican Evangelicals to show an interest in us but actually, whilst the friendship is accepted, evangelical unity isn’t really wanted and in fact is increasingly seen as an irritating nuisance.
And those are the reasons as to why it doesn’t really matter who the new Archbishop is. It’s not going to change anything within the Church of England, nor is it going to change anything for those of us outside of the Church of England because the crucial issues were in reality settled and fixed at least half a century ago.
Faithroots 
1 comment
Comments are closed.