Taking on the toughest job

Glen Reynolds tooks at how the next incumbent of one of the established church's hottest seats will be chosen.

IN an editorial last year, the unofficial voice of the Anglican Church, the Church Times, was outspoken in its criticism over the way the most senior clerics were chosen. "The Church of England as a whole," it said, "has lost confidence in the process of choosing diocesan bishops. It is not demonstrably fair, robust and effective."

Since that forthright denunciation of the system, which labelled it as eccentric, erratic and highly secretive, a report by Lady Perry has reviewed the way bishops are chosen. From a mechanism which had remained clouded in cloak-and-dagger secrecy, Perry said the review created a radically different process.

"We believe this is a change of culture, bringing an openness, transparency, a real trawl of the talents of all the clergy," she said.

One of the first big tests of this new system is in finding a successor to Michael Turnbull, who retires next April after eight and a half years as Bishop of Durham. As a privileged participant in the current process of choosing the new bishop, it has provided me with some welcome insight into the appointment process, paralleled of course by the recent appointment of Rowan Williams as the Archbishop of Canterbury. What I discovered was some progress, and yet some reluctance to engage in an entirely open debate.

Firstly, to explain how it works. The diocese has a committee, called a Vacancy in See committee, made up of over 20 elected and appointed members, whose job it is to draw up a "statement of needs", or what the diocese is looking for in its new bishop.

At the same time, the Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary and the Archbishop of Canterbury's Appointments Secretary come up to the diocese for two days of intensive consultation with representatives of all aspects of life in the area covered by the Durham diocese.

The committee also elect four of its members to go on to the Crown Appointments Commission, which has the task of sifting through all the representations and all the papers about the role, and all those available for such a post, and coming up with two names to put to the Prime Minister.

By convention, the Prime Minister would normally choose the first name and put it forward to the Queen, but he can choose the second or ask the Commission to think again.

On the face of it, the consultation process is more democratic, but the key document, the "statement of needs", remains confidential to the Vacancy in See committee and the Crown Appointments Commission. And what this process also illustrates is the involvement and interest of 10 Downing Street in choosing our new bishop, despite rumblings of ending the ties between the Church of England and the state.

A majority of Labour MPs are in favour of bishops losing their seats in the House of Lords, which would be the first step towards the disestablishment of the Established Church. Christian Socialists such as Chris Bryant, the MP for Rhondda, believe that "the bishops will leave the Lords in the next ten years. I think there is near unanimity on the Labour benches on this issue".

There are 26 Anglican Bishops who sit in the Lords, and the Bishop of Durham has historically played one of the more significant political roles. Bishop Michael, particularly, has been outspoken on a number of issues. But the Government is opposed to disestablishment, and the Church Times emphasised recently how Tony Blair is driven by his religious convictions.

"Not since Gladstone has there been a premier who enjoys reading sermons or theology as he does," said the Church Times, which also reckoned that the Prime Minister's excitement over the choice of the new Archbishop of Canterbury was one of the best-kept secrets of British public life. It may be that the private instincts of the Prime Minister are beginning to overflow into his public pronouncements.

Mr Blair supports the retention of bishops in the Lords, as well as his right to appoint them. However, the Royal Commission on the future of the Lords reported in 2000 that while bishops remain in the Upper House, "the concept of religious representation should be broadened to embrace other Christian denominations, as well as other faiths".

The Commission proposed that five additional seats in the Lords should be set aside to represent non-Christian faiths, with five of the 26 seats reserved for Anglicans going to Christian denominations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of the remaining 21 seats, 16 should be reserved for the Church of England and five for the other Christian denominations in England.

But many in the church, including senior bishops, believe the involvement of politicians is demeaning, though others believe it helps to preserve the link between church and State. Rowan Williams was the Archbishop of Wales, a church which was disestablished from the State over 80 years ago, and has expressed the view that the Church of England should sever the link with the State.

In June of this year, the Bishop of Woolwich stated that: "I am very interested in the Prime Minister having less to say in church appointments. It is quite improper for the choice of our leaders to be handed over to secular authorities. I want to get Downing Street and the Crown out of the system."

Despite the possibility of change in the future, the new Bishop of Durham will be chosen under the existing system, with the Prime Minister presenting his choice, taken from the two names put forward by the Crown Appointments Commission, to the Queen.

Fellow bishops have spoke of the personal qualities of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, namely his integrity, courage, courtesy and immense patience. It appears these are same characteristics sought by the Bishop of Jarrow, the Rt Rev John Pritchard, in the next Bishop of Durham.

The next occupant of Auckland Castle will face a worldwide Anglican church deeply divided over sexual ethics and the questionable future of the bishops in the reformed House of Lords. These are formidable challenges requiring formidable personalities, if the Anglican church is not to disintegrate.

In a personal capacity, Bishop John says: "I'm looking for an episcopal brother who will be as warm and encouraging as Bishop Michael has been. I've hugely enjoyed working with him and learning from him in the nine months since I was consecrated.

"I believe we need a bishop who will be deeply engaged with the needs of the region as a defender of the voiceless and an advocate for the qualities and strengths of the North-East. I think we need a man who can get to know people easily and care for their commitments and enthusiasms; who can teach the Christian faith in an attractive and accessible way; and who is rooted in Godly wisdom and prayerfulness.

"We need a man who will challenge and inspire both the Church and its sympathisers, a man of imagination and flair, and a man who knows how to survive the pressures of one of the toughest jobs in the Church of England."

It is indeed going to be a challenge for the new Bishop of Durham. Many will recall just how outspoken a previous Bishop of Durham was. David Jenkins incurred the wrath of Margaret Thatcher, who referred to him as a "cuckoo". Many will hope that the future Bishop of Durham is a force of unity as well as an occasional thorn in the flesh.