The next Archbishop
From Professor Kathleen Jones
Sir: Your leader (April 6) on the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury shows a welcome understanding of the problems and responsibilities of the Church ot England, but does less than justice to the Chadwick Commission and the General Synod.
The Chadwick Commission split on the issue of the appointment of bishops and archbishops. The 'Chadwick A' group argued that "the-ultimate control in the appointment of spiritual leaders with a responsibility for the nation may legitimately continue to rest with the Crown acting on the ad ' vice of the Prime Minister because the Crown and the Prime Minister, acting together, represent the people of England in a way in which the or , ganisation of the Church does not" (paragraph 104). These views carried the support of eight members of the Commission, including Professor Chadwick himself. It was the 'ChadNick B' group, also consisting of eight -nembers, which proposed an elective iystem.
As a member of 'Chadwick A,' I still lank that a system which would place he appointment wholly in the hands
of the Church would be a mistake. However, there is no reason why the Prime Minister's ecclesiastical appointments secretary should not consult the Standing Committee of the General Synod, or why such consultation should be seen as "the first major step . . . towards disestablishment." The Synod has three Houses: the House of Bishops consists of the two Archbishops and all diocesan Bishops, and the House of Clergy of mostly senior clergy from the diocese. If there is any sense in which the Synod can be called 'heterogeneous and casually assembled,' this must refer to the House of Laity. You will find in Crucible, the journal of the General Synod's Board of Social Responsibility, for July-August 1971, an analysis of the membership of the House of Laity which I carried out shortly after its formation. As one might expect, the membership is largely male (78 per cent men), largely middle-aged, and almost exclusively from the professional and managerial classes of society. One can doubt whether it is a representative body (though it in fact contains more women, more members under forty and more new members than did the House of Commons elected in 1970) but it is difficult to doubt either the ability or the seriousness of its members.
Kathleen Jones Department of Social Administration and Social Work, University of York, Heslington, York.
Previous page
