Rector’s Reflections
Wednesday 11th June 2025
Why is it taking so long to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Over the last week or so, several people have been asking me: why is it taking so long to appoint a new Archbishop of Canterbury? I thought I would write a short series of reflections in an attempt to try and answer this question. It is clearly a question which is on people’s minds.
I’m going to give three different answers to the question. Each answer is, I think, a truthful answer, but each individual answer only tells part of the story.
To start with, one answer as to why it is taking so long to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury is that it is symptomatic of the general approach which the Church of England currently takes to making appointments in the Church. The Church of England tends to make its appointments in a slow, steady and somewhat ponderous manner. The Church is certainly capable of acting swiftly, but it tends to prefer to take things slowly and carefully, and there is nothing wrong in taking this approach, especially when making a high profile appointment.
Why is the Church of England usually so ponderous in its appointment making? There are many factors at play here. In part, it is because the Church of England wishes to model good HR practice. Good HR practice will often involve spending considerable time drawing up an accurate role description, and thinking carefully about the relevant person specification. When it comes to appointing a new Archbishop, it’s no good simply using an old role description, because things have moved on since the last appointment was made, both in the Church and in society as a whole. An additional aspect of good HR practice is to ensure that there is no unlawful discrimination, and many would say that good HR practice should also involve the promotion of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in the workplace.
This moves on to a second factor. The Church of England is very risk averse. It needs to be able to defend its HR practices against anyone who wishes to claim that they have been unfairly treated. In many organisations, HR has this defensive function, and so we should not be surprised this is also true in the Church of England. The Church needs to show that it has followed every step and ticked very box, so that should someone seek to sue, the Church has a good defence. It also satisfies the Church’s insurers.
This in turns leads to a third factor. Why does the Church need to be so risk averse? In part, it is because of two aspects of Church life which may well come as a surprise. The first is that generally there is no probationary period for clergy appointments: once a clergy person has been appointed to a post, they can stay until retirement, regardless of their performance or suitability. It is exceptionally difficult to manage an underperforming priest or bishop, or to get rid of them. So you need to bend over backwards to get the appointment right in the first place- otherwise the Church can be stuck with the wrong person, or the right person in the wrong role, and everyone suffers. In such circumstances, it is much better to spend a year trying to make the right appointment rather than rushing to fill a vacancy and ending up with the wrong person in post.
The other reason why the Church is so risk averse is that it wishes to consult as many stake-holders as possible. In part, this is because it recognises that the new leader must have the stake-holders on board, and one way to do this is to ensure that the stake-holders have a meaningful say in the appointment process. It is also because it is recognised that it is always helpful to hear from a wide range of different perspectives. The problem is that the number of stake-holders to be consulted increases significantly with the seniority of the role. Even the appointment of a humble parish priest might well involve consultation with 20 different stake-holders. There will be hundreds perhaps thousands of different stake-holders who will feel that they should have a say in the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury. There needs to be time to ensure that these stake-holders have had the chance to have their say. If this takes 6 months, so be it. Consultation is the name of the game, and experience has taught that effective consultation shouldn’t be rushed.
So the first explanation for why it’s taking so long to get an Archbishop of Canterbury is that this reflects the way the Church works when it comes to making significant decisions: it acts in a slow, careful and consultative manner, with the overwhelming aim of trying to avoid an inappropriate or ineffective appointment. It is taking the long term view: much better to wait and get the right person, than rush in and make a quick appointment for the sake of filling the vacancy.
There are other explanations for the delay, as well, and we shall look at these in further reflections.