The next Archbishop; is the Church of England consulting meaningfully?

This is Blog no 92

Hats off to the Church of England. At least it is trying hard.

Inviting the public to nominate potential successors to Archbishop Welby may have raised eyebrows, but it is in keeping with other attempts to secure wider involvement in our national institutions.

Last week, Lambeth Palace announced its ‘consultation’. Whether it’s the right term may be arguable, but essentially it enables respondents          (consultees ?) to give their views on the characteristics they think may be needed by the new Archbishop.

Also, they can make nominations which may be considered by the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC). There are precedents. Under the honours system, you can be nominated. And under the ‘People’s peers’ scheme, your name can be submitted for a seat in the House of Lords.

For the Church of England, the advantages may lie in trying to address its calamitous public relations image. Battered by embarrassments and worse, it’s an attempt to break loose from an image of defensive older men out of touch with modern realities. It needs to be seen to be listening. What better, therefore than to invite the laity to suggest the leader they want?

Apart from specifying an age range, the Church has avoided publishing many parameters. No restriction on gender or even on sexual orientation! That might not sit well with the more traditional wings of the Anglican communion, especially in Africa. But this exercise has not been constrained. It is an open consultation – free to anyone, whether Christian or not. It takes ecumenism to an entirely new level and  comes from the same strand of thinking that led to ‘open primaries’ where the Conservative party, some years ago invited constituents to nominate anyone whom they thought might be an acceptable Member of Parliament.

Let’s not be too critical. There are different kinds of consultation. Maybe we are too hung up on the tried-and-tested formula of Decision-support. Reduce a long list of options to a manageable choice between acceptable solutions, publish likely impacts and seek relevant views, particularly from the most affected stakeholders. Most consultations that hit the headlines follow this profile.

But we are also getting accustomed to other genres of consultation. Calls for evidence are ways to widen the sources of research or advice and to provide opportunities to the ‘less-usual suspects’ to exert influence. Large-scale deliberative consultations such as Citizens Assemblies are often massive co-production exercises frequently focused on agenda-setting.

So, what exactly is the Church of England up to? What kind of consultation is this?

Realistically, this has little to do with the actual decision-making. A list of hundreds of known and unknown nominees will, no doubt be whittled down, the CNC will produce a shortlist, and at the same time, informally consult ‘key stakeholders’. These will be considered – no doubt conscientiously (to quote the Gunning Four requirement) and in time, it will settle on two names to submit to the Prime Minister and the King. How can the consultation be remotely relevant?

Answer - because it is yet another emerging form of consultation – what I call a Sentiment-assessment. An exercise that helps you measure the mood of the moment. To take the temperature. To pick up the vibes!

Consider the current popularity of using Ideation. Asking people to contribute ideas. Few rules, but allowing respondents to express their thoughts, however outlandish. Careful study of their ideas enables consultororganisations to figure out what issues arouse the most interest; what aspirations continue to be sought: what anxieties are causing concern and what trade-offs might be acceptable. No-one pretends that those who submit ideas are representative. The output is illustrative only.

The NHS’ still-current Big Conversation featured such a call for ideas. And in recent months, the Department of Transport conducted a similar consultation on an Integrated National Transport Strategy. Should we view the Church of England’s exercise as a similar attempt to absorb Anglican views at grass roots level? Has it, maybe realised that imposing unwelcome traditionalists on congregations with more flexible beliefs is a risky strategy in modern times? Does it think that the kind of names preferred by the ‘stakeholders’ will tell it about their spiritual preferences?

Yet, faiths and religions are far from democracies. Leaders are meant to seek and interpret divine guidance, and a focus group of adherents is seldom viewed as a satisfactory mechanism! Is it theologically inconsistent that this most top-down organisation now wants to be seen as listening to bottom-up opinion? Or should we rejoice at any organisation that seeks to understand its environment and its stakeholders before taking important decisions?

In its defence, the Church of England would probably claim that its appointments have always been highly consultative. (So might the Catholic Church as evidenced in the recent film of Robert Harris’ book CONCLAVE).  Many years ago, however, the Anglican church in England was considered by many to be ‘the Conservative Party at prayer’, and there were similarities in the way they chose their leaders. Before the party membership were given the vote, Tory grandees would consult informally, and a leader would ‘emerge’. The recent experience of the Conservatives should serve as a warning that mass participation does not guarantee successful choices!

For now, we can watch an interesting experiment as the Church seeks to balance the priorities of this world and the next, and helping us gain yet more insight into the fascinating role that consultation can play in the 21^stcentury.

Rhion H  Jones LL.B

For more like this, and to receive the monthly Consultation Catch-up, click here