Sunday, May 30, 2010

So it begins...

The next episcopal election for the Archbishop of Sydney is not until 2013. But there is already movement at the station, with the latest Australian Church Record not only containing two articles on leadership, but also a guide on what to look for in a future archbishop. Peter Bolt, besides suggesting that several of his colleagues at Moore College should be considered as potential candidates, offers several pieces of advice on how the next archbishop should be:

  1. He must satisfy the basics (i.e. male, minister of the gospel with a character that matches the NT and BCP, etc.)
  2. He must be under 57
  3. He must be a local, already here with us in the Diocese
  4. He must be capable of theological leadership
  5. He must be psychologically robust, comfortable in his own skin
  6. Must be committed to mission
  7. He must be the people’s choice
So - it's on for young and old...except those over 57.

15 comments:

byron smith said...

Or female...
Interesting that gender is the very first requirement mentioned.

It would be a vote of no confidence in our present direction to turn to someone outside.
Maybe that is what is needed? If Bolt's point is true, it is hard to see why this ought to be a principle, unless there is another one behind it: "The new archbishop should not make any criticism of what has gone before." Or rather, more likely is that Bolt already has a candidate in mind and is trying to cut other options off at the pass. These principles start to look less like a set of guiding directions and a little more like a campaign pitch, especially when we get to this: The next Archbishop of Sydney is not somewhere else; he is already here in our very midst.

When he starts to mention names... well, I'll stop there.

Matthew Moffitt said...

Oh, this feels a lot like a public campaign launch. It will be very interesting to see what the ACR and ACL start churning out over the next three years.

timsmartt said...

Hey Matt,

Why are people talking about the next Archbishop? Is there a mandatory retirement age or do Archbishops serve a fixed term?

Mike W said...

How old is Andrew P Katay again?

Mike W said...

it is interesting that 'likes being an anglican' wasn't on the list, let alone 'has a vision for future anglican ministry'. The amount of times I've had Anglican clergy say to me that they would rather be somewhere else but couldn't quite pull themselves away from 'the boat that is good to fish off' is depressing.

Spally said...

Tim,

I have nowhere near as much knowledge about these things as Matt but I'm barging in anway...

I think it is a fixed term thing. However there is also a mandatory retirement age, which is why the archbishop needs to be no older than 57 - otherwise they would have to retire before they finsihed their term.

byron smith said...

Mike - I notice something else missing: ordained.

Spally - PFJ retires age 70 in July 2013. This is set. There is no fixed term. Generally, unless they set down, an Archbish stays in until retirement.

If the pattern since Mowell is followed (last six ABs), then the next one will be born in the 50s, since each has been born in a successive decade (1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s).

Matthew Moffitt said...

@Tim: Byron is right. There is no fixed term as such. Under current canon law, ++Peter is due to retire when he turns 70 which is in 2013.

His successor will be due to retire when they turn 65. The standing committee of synod changed the retirement age a couple of years ago: actually, when PFJ was elected he was due to retire at 65, but standing committee changed extended his 'term' until he reached 70 so that he could oversee the diocese's ten year mission.

Matthew Moffitt said...

IT was interesting to notice the generational angst in Bolt's article:

"It is time to get a younger man into the office—especially at this crucial leadership changeover period from early baby-boomer to
generation next. The trouble is, the early baby boomers just don’t want to let go, and the next generation keep looking ‘up’ instead of ‘around’.
"

Mike W said...

Yeah, I've heard that before. I don't think it is a problem you can solve around election time, it has been going on for a while. You need to give people genuine space to lead in their own way, which means they might disagree with you sometimes, if they are going to develop as leaders. But when you have a generation of strong leaders that either keeps people on a leash or sidelines them for disagreeing, well, you are going to be left with a vacuum of real leadership in the next generation.

ryansmartt said...

Matt - what does an Archbishop actually do? Is there an official role description?

Matthew Moffitt said...

Hi Ryan, You'll find a short description here.

alix said...

"In the next couple of years it will be important for synodspeople to turn a blind eye to those placed on public platforms for all to see, so that other potential candidates might be discovered who are left in the wings."

And yet half a page earlier...

"Any list of potential candidates
should have representatives from the Moore College faculty on it. Whatever their own thoughts about this matter, men such as Mark Thompson, Bill Salier, Andrew Shead and Archie Poulos deserve serious consideration."

I guess the ACR doesn't count as a public platform, then...unless Bolt wants me to ignore the names he names?

Matthew Moffitt said...

@Alix: awesome.

Anna M Blanch said...

very interesting indeed. it is amazing how much one becomes disconnected from these things living on the other side of the world.