([London] Times) Church of England fails to agree on a successor for the Archbishop of Canterbury

The body responsible for choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to agree who should be the successor to Dr Rowan Williams.

Despite a three day session, aided by prayers invoked on Twitter with the hashtage #prayforthecnc, the 16-member committee has been unable to decide on who should take on the job that the present incumbent today implied was “impossible”.

A source told The Times that a decision on who should succeed Dr Rowan Williams was not expected soon. “A decision is not imminent,” he said.

Read it all (requires subscription).


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, --Rowan Williams, Anglican Provinces, Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop of York John Sentamu, Church of England (CoE), CoE Bishops, England / UK, History, Religion & Culture

28 comments on “([London] Times) Church of England fails to agree on a successor for the Archbishop of Canterbury

  1. Dan Crawford says:

    “Prayers on Twitter”? How about the committee? Did they begin their work with a Eucharist and prayers to the Holy Spirit? Were prayers said during their deliberations? Did they read passages from Scripture or hear them read?

    No wonder the papacy has lasted so long.

  2. RMBruton says:

    Oh my! I was prepared to stay up all night watching the news to see the puff of smoke come from the chimney of Lambeth Palace! Now what will we do?slightly edited

  3. Sarah says:

    To whomever are the sensible conservatives on the committee refusing to go along with the ridiculous progressive/revisionist choices in the mix . . .

    [i]Thank you.[/i]

    Hold strong, and keep the faith.

    It takes a lot of guts to refuse to vote the lib way and deadlock a committee like this.

    Thank you.

  4. Cennydd13 says:

    And a thank you from me, too! It looks like some sense has crept into their thinking, and I won’t be at all surprised if the process takes a bit longer this time around. Let’s hope so, because the choice they make will eventually affect [i]all[/i] of us Anglicans…..in and out of the Communion. I will pray for them…..earnestly.

  5. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    The Anglican Communion can’t agree on anything important…now there’s a shocker.

  6. Karen B. says:

    Interestingly, there is no news at all to be found about this that I can find on either the BBC World Headlines page, or the BBC UK headlines page as of 23:30 GMT tonight. Perhaps a telling commentary on how the CoE and the Anglican Communion has lost a lot of relevance to many in England these days.

  7. Jim the Puritan says:

    My Catholic co-worker just suggested they should back to the tried-and-true way of making the choice: let the Pope do it.

  8. Ad Orientem says:

    Actually given what the CofE claims to be (a national church under the authority of the Crown) I would suggest that they take the top two or three names based on votes and send them to the Palace, then let The Queen decide.

  9. Cennydd13 says:

    As I’ve already said, my #1 choice would be +Welby, and my #2 would be +Chartres.

  10. tjmcmahon says:

    #8- that is what they do. They can’t decide on which 2 names to submit. I’m with Sarah, thank God for the few who have refused to allow the planned train wreck, or at least postpone it for as long as possible. Clearly, the PM has almost required a pro-gay-marriage ABoC, but it is also clear that means the end of the Communion. Now, of course, the pressure will be on to accept a lackluster liberal as a “compromise”, so let us pray that enough members continue to hold out that we end up with an archbishop who is deserving of a miter, and not one who should never have had one.

  11. Cennydd13 says:

    It’s up to Her Majesty to make the final choice, and I’m sure she’ll think it through thoroughly before she decides. I hope I’m right.

  12. paradoxymoron says:

    Oh my goodness! What a horrible abdication of responsibility, to seek authority from hereditary thugs. That’s awful. Elizabeth Battenberg is also responsible for this nonsense, having consented to the White Druid in the first place. It’s a little late to expect that debauched old leopard to change her spots.

  13. APB says:

    When the current bishop of the DioTN was chosen, there was a long period of deadlock with multiple convocations, followed by the selection of a new slate of candidates. The eventual result was +Bauerschmidt. It will be interesting to see whether this will be a parallel process, and result.

  14. RMBruton says:

    As a Consolation Prize, perhaps the Runner-Up could be offered the title of being the next Archbishop of the ACNA?

  15. clarin says:

    Would the last person to leave the Anglican Communion please blow out the candles?

  16. Pageantmaster Ù† says:


    Well, I have watched with mounting concern as once again the control freaks have tried to swing another body, the CNC with the appointment of Barry Morgan by Williams’ wretched ‘Standing Committee’ to ‘represent’ the Primates. This committee of white liberal nonentities including two theologically retarded American bishops were disgracefully given a say in our next ABC.

    The result of their scheming? More humiliation and a shambles as impasse has resulted. This is not the first time – just as they were so busy trying to isolate, bribe and undermine the faithful Africans over the Covenant, they took their eye off what was going on back home, so complacent were they.

    Serve them right as their schemes come to naught. There is one upside however, the CNC now leaks like a sieve.

    10. The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
    11. The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
    Psalm 33

  17. off2 says:

    I have a very limited understanding of the constitutional limits imposed on The Queen in this matter. Add’l info would be most welcome.

    #12, Are you naming Her Majesty “that debauched old leopard”? She is admittedly elderly, but debauched?

  18. Katherine says:

    Pageantmaster: “two theologically retarded American bishops.” Thank you! I shall continue to watch comments here to find out what’s really going on, since you are willing to tell us. What now?

  19. RMBruton says:

    Pageantmaster, next time you might want to use the term “slow-processing”. You never know when the thought police may unleash one of their harpies to banish you.

  20. Cennydd13 says:

    12. I do believe your description of the Queen was off-base and uncalled for.

  21. paradoxymoron says:

    [blockquote] #12, Are you naming Her Majesty “that debauched old leopard”? She is admittedly elderly, but debauched? [/blockquote]
    debauched: (among the definitions are)
    a : archaic : to make disloyal
    b : to corrupt by intemperance or sensuality

    Monarchy is theft, hereditary theft, a denial of fundamental, inalienable liberties, corruption of the principles of individual sovereignty and dignity. Cennydd13, you are civil, but I will disagree with you.

  22. Sarah says:

    Whew — so paradoxymoron simply believes that monarchy is intrinsically sinful and therefore all purported monarchs are such.

    I was worried that the term “debauched old leopard” would mean something I should be concerned about.

  23. Cennydd13 says:

    21. As you are free to do, but Sarah, 22. , I agree with you, because it concerns me, too.

  24. Sarah says:

    Well I can’t make you not be concerned, but paradoxymoron has helpfully defined “debauched old leopard” in such a way that it’s a matter of indifference for me if somebody is called such or not.

    Rather like revisionists announcing that one is “hateful and bigoted” if one does not support gay marriage. Under normal definitions “hateful and bigoted” would be “fightin’ words” . . . but once one realizes how gay activists define “hateful and bigoted” they become yawners and nobody cares. ; > )

  25. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    In addition to being my head of state, HM is head of state of 15 countries including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, a large part of your neighbors in the Caribbean and head of the 54 nation Commonwealth. In fact most of the people overseas who read this weblog have some connection with her.

    Monarchies operate [with the exception of Germany] in most of the prosperous and industrious countries of Northern Europe. Meanwhile you find presidencies in the economies of Eastern and Southern Europe…..and in of course in the United States.

    I would not personally show disrespect to the holder of the office of head of state of the US. In addition most of us respect HM personally for the way she has conducted herself as our head of state and as the supreme governor of our church. If she were able to select the ABC, we would probably be in better hands than under current constitutional arrangements, where she may not.

  26. Ad Orientem says:

    [blockquote] Monarchy is theft, hereditary theft, a denial of fundamental, inalienable liberties, corruption of the principles of individual sovereignty and dignity.[/blockquote]

    What a bunch of rubbish and humanistic twaddle. From whence exactly do you derive this absurd and anti-Christan ideal of individual sovereignty? God is sovereign. God has rights. People have responsibilities. The state exists under divine mandate. Where exactly does one find reference to your presumably republican (small ‘r’) principles in scripture or sacred tradition? The only form of government referenced in the Bible is monarchy. What part of render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s did you fail to grasp? Or was God giving legitimacy to a thief? Christianity is an inherently monarchist religion. We do not worship a president or a prime minister. We worship the King of kings. This individual sovereignty nonsense may fly among those who think the Ten Commandments should be put up for a referendum. But it is not a position that squares with Christianity.

  27. Cennydd13 says:


  28. paradoxymoron says:

    interesting responses. any suggested readings for the relationship between Christian ideals and Enlightenment principles? fascinating that you’ve rejected the idea that people have rights, only responsibilities. So can you point me towards writings that elucidate on the incompatibility of Christianity with individual sovereignty or other foundations of representative government? Thanks for the largely civil responses to my largely intemperate inititial post.