A new Archbishop of Canterbury: the case for ecclesial realism

Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and Curates, that they may both by their life and doctrine set forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments ...

All bishops. If you wanted a phrase to perfectly illustrate why the Archbishop of Canterbury really is not that significant in a classical Anglican view for those outside the Church of England, this is it. There are no particular prayers for the Archbishop of Canterbury because that Archbishop is merely another bishop, with no authority and no jurisdiction beyond being Primate of All England. Anglicanism has no papacy. Indeed, Anglicanism has no patriarch. This is why the petition "for all Bishops" in the Prayer for the Church Militant is not followed by any particular petition for the Archbishop of Canterbury. Placing this petition alongside the opposing Enthusiasms, on the Left and Right of the Anglican Communion, responding to the appointment of the new Archbishop of Canterbury reveals to what extent those responses are alien to a classical Anglican understanding.

Those elsewhere in the Communion lamenting that a liberal woman bishop has become Archbishop of Canterbury are implying a ridiculously inflated role for the office. According to Gafcon, "This appointment abandons global Anglicans, as the Church of England has chosen a leader who will further divide an already split Communion". While Gafcon may be habouring desires for an Anglican papacy and magisterium, those of us who are classical Anglicans are left scratching our heads wondering how a communion of national churches ended up being viewed as a quasi-Roman ecclesiastical polity with a ridiculously inflated and ahistorical view of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Gafcon's statement included this rather curious description of the Anglican Communion:

For over a century and a half, the Archbishop of Canterbury functioned not only as the Primate of All England but also as a spiritual and moral leader of the Anglican Communion. In more recent times, the See of Canterbury has been described as one of the four “Instruments of Communion,” whilst also chairing the other three Instruments, namely the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.

Throughout that century and a half, the majority of Anglicans across the globe would not have been able to name the Archbishop of Canterbury. And why should they? The office, quite simply, has no meaningful significance for the life of Anglican national churches. As for the 'Instruments of Communion' language, it is, to use Jeremy Bentham's phrase about another legal fiction, nonsense on stilts.

What makes this even stranger is that those who identify as traditionalist or conservative Anglicans are here accepting a distinctly untraditional understanding, an innovation which should be entirely foreign to those who wish to conserve the Anglicanism set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal, and Articles of Religion. We can push this further. Do we really think that structures invented in recent decades, when progressive influence in the Communion has been at its height, are really likely to serve traditionalist and conservative ends?

Then there is the other side of the coin to Gafcon, those who - while entirely disagreeing with Gafcon's theological agenda - share a very un-Anglican fascination with the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. Primates from progressive-oriented churches of the Communion have indulged in remarkably silly discourse. The Primate of Brazil declared, "I believe this election brings a fresh breath of life and marks the beginning of a new time for the Church". This is the type of language normally heard at the election of a new pontiff and therefore ridiculously inappropriate for the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury. No matter how pastorally, theologically, and institutionally insightful an Archbishop of Canterbury may be, we can be very sure that they will not mark "the beginning of a new time for the Church". The duties and responsibilities of the Primate of All England are, thankfully, rather more modest that such ambitions.

The Primates of New Zealand rather oddly compared the appointment to the prophet Deborah's role in Judges, while saying that they "celebrate and unequivocally support" the appointment. 'Unequivocal support' from New Zealand, of course, means precisely, nothing for the appointment and ministry of the Primate of All England. As for 'celebrating' the appointment, it does seem to be a a rather odd, papalist-like response for New Zealand Anglicans. Unless, of course, progressive Anglicans in New Zealand have a new-found enthusiasm for affirming their links with the United Kingdom, forged through the British Empire. Unfortunately, I am not hopeful that the latter is the case.

What makes both sets of approaches very odd is that the various issues debated across the churches of the Anglican Communion since the mid-20th century - liturgical revision, the ordination of women, and same-sex relationships - have not been 'resolved' in any way by the 'Instruments of Communion'. National churches in their synods have decided on these matters. Likewise, and this should be particularly significant for conservatives, the assaults on creedal faith in various churches of the Anglican Communion - the nonsense promoted by the generation of Spike, Spong, Jenkins and their like - have been addressed entirely outside and apart from the supposed 'Instruments of Communion'.

As an example of this, we can point to the most effective response to the explicit denial of creedal orthodoxy in Spong's delusional '12 Theses'. This was the response by Rowan Williams, who revealed the banalities promoted by Spong. Crucially, Williams did this not as Archbishop of Canterbury but as Bishop of Monmouth, a rather modest Welsh see. It was a response which strengthened and encouraged movements for creedal orthodoxy across those churches of the Communion threatened by denials of creedal teaching. Now it is rare to find even a progressive bishop who will publicly deny the Virgin Birth or the Empty Tomb. The Instruments of Communion were entirely irrelevant to this process and contributed nothing to the outcome. 

The response, outside the Church of England, of supposed conservatives and progressives alike to the appointment of the new Archbishop of Canterbury has been profoundly un-Anglican. We have seen those who describe themselves as conservative, traditionalist Anglicans promote a papalist view of authority in the Anglican Communion, a radical innovation alien to classical Anglicanism. And we have seen progressives with an (ever-so tedious) ideology of liberation welcome the appointment of an English Archbishop as if they were colonial subjects. And perhaps that is exactly what they are, as it is a rather good example of how progressives eagerly promote a form of cultural imperialism, shaped by the preoccupations of early 21st century American elites. While projecting papalist fantasies onto a liberal Archbishop of Canterbury may serve progressive triumphalism, it is merely a progressive culture war meme - and no less un-Anglican than the Gafcon response.

Rather than ridiculously inflating the significance of the Archbishop of Canterbury by giving to the office a global role that entirely distracts from the duties of a Primate of All England, we should be viewing the Anglican Communion as much more akin to the Lutheran World Federation and the World Communion of Reformed Churches, both associations of national churches. As such, the Archbishop of Canterbury should be considered as a role little different to the Presidents of the LWF or WCRC. Such ecclesial realism offers a meaningful alternative to both Gafcon and progressive enthusiasms and fantasies, and is much more thoroughly grounded in classical Anglican norms and understanding.

As for those in the Church of England who will soon have a newly enthroned Primate of All England, it is for them to assess Bishop Sarah, not those of us outside the Church of England. When asked for my view in recent days, I have admitted that, as an occasional observer of the Church of England, I am dubious that she is the right choice for a church already struggling to connect with the Quiet Revival (and we might wonder if this issue even occurred to the Crown Nominations Commission). This reflects something of George Owers' hard-hitting criticism of the "embodiment of the lanyard class". Likewise, Sam Charles Norton has reminded us that "The need for clear and courageous teaching of the faith from an Archbishop of Canterbury has never been more pressing". To which we must add, "and all bishops". This, after all, is what we desire when we pray, "Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and Curates, that they may both by their life and doctrine set forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments".