A key figure in the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) has called for greater transparency in the decision-making process for choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury, who will lead the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The previous archbishop, Most Rev. Justin Welby, left office on Jan. 6, 2025, amid controversy over his safeguarding role concerning a serial pedophile and criticism from some Anglican leaders for supporting homosexual unions.
Welby faced scrutiny in the Makin Review, as previously reported by Christian Daily International, regarding his responsibility in handling the case of the late John Smyth QC, who sexually abused numerous boys and young men in the 1970s and 1980s. The review concluded that Smyth could have been stopped earlier if Welby had formally reported concerns disclosed to him a decade ago.
Rev. Andrew Goddard, a member of CEEC and a tutor in ethics at both Westminster Theological Centre and Ridley Hall, Cambridge, has publicly raised concerns about the process by which the new archbishop will be appointed.
The Anglican House of Bishops did not succeed in persuading the General Synod, responsible for governance in the Anglican Church, to approve changes to the decision-making process at the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), which is responsible for recommending candidates for vacant diocesan positions, according to a CEEC press release.
King Charles III will approve the appointment of the new archbishop via the prime minister, based on the recommendations of the CNC, once it has reviewed potential candidates.
This process, the CEEC release explained, involves consultations at various levels, with input from both clergy and laypeople inside and outside the diocese.
A Vacancy in See Committee (ViSC) within each diocese elects members for the CNC and provides a "profile" of the diocese and its needs for the commission, according to CEEC.
However, Goddard believes that "due process" has not been followed in the Canterbury diocese, where the new archbishop will be nominated. He claimed that an agreed timeline to replace members of the current ViSC had not been followed, resulting in numerous vacancies.
The CEEC reported that a second ViSC had been formed for the 2025-2027 period following Welby’s resignation, but it had not been utilized. Instead, a third committee had been instigated, overlapping with new regulations for ViSC elections agreed upon at the recent General Synod in February 2025.
These new regulations pose further questions about the process in the Canterbury diocese, added the CEEC, which stated, "This has been seen to have been done in a shroud of mystery, and it is unclear whether the latest ViSC complies with the new regulations."
“There appears to have been, and still remains, some considerable confusion and serious questions which need answering, with no less than three different Vacancy in See Committees (ViSC) being in existence in the diocese since the vacancy was announced, but with all of them potentially not compliant with the regulation,” said Goddard.
Another point of controversy is that new regulations prevent male clergy in the Canterbury diocese from being elected to the CNC, meaning the three nominees must be women, according to the CEEC. These rules require that one clergywoman and one laywoman be elected by the ViSC.
“Uniquely, Canterbury is only electing three members, so when this new rule combines with the rule that at least half of CNC members must be lay, this means that no male clergyperson can be elected,” explained Goddard, calling for “greater transparency and fuller explanations” about the processes involved in appointing the future Archbishop of Canterbury.
John Dunnett, CEEC national director, said Goddard had “put his finger” on critical issues surrounding the appointment process with “typically incisive thinking,” calling it a “cause for concern.”
“Time and again, we see that proper process is simply not being followed on significant issues such as these,” said Dunnett. “Andrew’s analysis spells out why confidence and trust in the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury could be undermined if due process is neglected.”
Goddard’s full analysis of the appointment process can be found here.
