IN THE LAST issue of SEARCH, Mark Chapman made a timely contribution to the ongoing discussion about the structures of the Anglican Communion, focussing in particular on the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the light of the election of Bp. Sarah Mullally to that role. In a sense this discussion about the Archbishop’s role has been going on since at least the middle of the 19th century, when a controversy in South Africa led to calls for the Archbishop of Canterbury to intervene. Instead he decided to invite bishops from around the world “with whom he was in communion” to a conference at Lambeth Palace to consult on a way forward in that controversy and on other issues which were emerging in “the colonial churches”. Such a conference was for consultation only – it did not have a decision-making role – and yet many especially Church of England bishops stayed away, questioning the right of the Archbishop even to call such a conference. For those who attended, the opportunity to consult together proved very valuable and led to a decision to hold further meetings in the future; and so the Lambeth Conference of bishops meeting approximately every ten years came into being. Today the role of the Archbishop is still to convene and host this Conference, during which bishops meet, discuss and consult. The Conference itself is clear that it seeks to express the mind of the Communion on a variety of current issues during its meeting. The 20th century, especially the 1950s and ‘60s, saw the emergence of several newly autonomous Anglican provinces, each governed by bishops, clergy and laity meeting together in some variation of synodical government. This led in turn to calls for a similar body in the Communion involving laity, clergy and bishops; and so the Anglican Consultative Council with lay, clerical and episcopal representation from each province was born, meeting first in Nairobi in 1971. In an announcement at the 1978 Lambeth Conference, Archbishop Donald Coggan proposed a regular meeting of Anglican Primates “for prayer and leisurely conversation”; and so the Primates’ Meeting came into existence. Standing committees, commissions, and networks gradually grew up around these bodies. The consultative nature of each of these structures as they emerged was always clear from the beginning, as was their provisionality. None of them can claim permanence; even the Anglican Communion itself is seen as a step on the way to the ultimate goal of full unity in the Body of Christ. Central to each of these structures is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is convener and host of the Lambeth Conference, president of the ACC (there is also an elected chair and vice-chair), and chair of the Primates’ Meeting. Chapman in his article addressed the unrealistic expansion of archepiscopal responsibilities caused by the new structures, given that in addition to being seen as leader of the worldwide communion the Archbishop also acts as Primate of England and diocesan bishop of Canterbury, and functions as a major establishment figure in English public life. For decades now it has been recognised that these pressures are simply too great for one person, and it is the role within the Communion which comes under most scrutiny. Archbishops under pressure Recent history has given examples. Archbishop Rowan Williams, elected in 2002, walked straight into the major controversy about same-sex issues which had been centre stage at Lambeth 1998 and had only deepened since then. While issues such as these can only be resolved by the churches themselves in consultation and dialogue, yet there were pressures for the Archbishop to intervene in provinces, to meet dissident and often distressed voices, and above all to act in one way or another. In fact the role of the Archbishop is simply to hold the space for dialogue and conversation, admittedly an almost impossible task in a situation where few are willing to listen, and some refuse to meet or talk together. Archbishop Welby, elected in 2013, faced similar pressures, and decided to confront the issue head on; but despite long and strenuous efforts over years it still avoids resolution and the controversy continues. For both archbishops these additional Communion pressures, which had been growing under their predecessors, imposed major constraints on the rest of their ministries, apart from their own personal lives, and this suggests that the role as currently conceived and exercised within the Communion is simply impossible to sustain in the future. A recent meeting of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) took up the task placed on it by Lambeth 2022, and made several recommendations in a document entitled The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals: Renewing the Instruments of the Anglican Communion¹. Amongst them were several which sought to reduce the more active and time-consuming role of the Archbishop within the Instruments of Communion to the more passive one of representing the historical relationship of Anglican churches with the See of Canterbury, and a less formal role within these Instruments, for example ceding place to a rotating elected chair of the Primates’ Meeting. These proposals are obviously sensible and consistent with the increased autonomy and self-confidence of Anglican churches around the world, especially those provinces which emerged in the 20th and 21st centuries and no longer look to the Church of England for guidance or leadership on difficult issues. The Anglican ideal – a Church for all The ongoing evolution and changes in the structures of the Anglican Communion reflect the efforts of Anglicans today to be the sort of church which Thomas Cranmer and other reformers envisioned for the Church of England in the 16th and 17th centuries – a church which was to be for all the nation, embracing both its catholic nature as shaped and developed in its early centuries and the evangelical tradition re-awakened during the Reformation with its emphasis on an open Bible accessible to all – an ‘inclusive’ church, though Cranmer probably never used the word. For the reformers, this combination represented both...
