The announcement was made on the morning of October 2, 2025, that the Rt. Hon. and Rt. Revd. Dame Sarah Mullally, currently Bishop of London, was the official nominee to succeed Justin Welby as the next Archbishop of Canterbury. The appointment has been broadly welcomed.
However, in reality, the nomination represents nothing more than a rearrangement of the ecclesiastical furniture. Nothing much will change in the Church of England.
The church was for many a laughingstock during the vacancy in its senior office in comparison with what took place in the Roman Catholic Church. The process to replace the pope, after the death of Pope Francis on April 21, 2025, was done and dusted in three weeks as the cardinals gathered in conclave. The Church of England, however, consulted everyone and their mother—the other faiths, anyone with an opinion—and has taken nearly a year to even nominate to the post. It will be several months more before the formal taking up of office. If I may be frank, the word farce comes to mind.
Nevertheless, we must pray for Bishop Sarah and all in authority, civil or spiritual. First Timothy 2:1–2 insists that “petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” The pastoral epistles, of course, could not be clearer on the importance of sound doctrine, the clarity of the gospel, and the guarding of the good deposit (2 Tim. 1:14), a point made by the Church of England Evangelical Council, expressing the hope, in an otherwise really rather weak statement, that the new archbishop will lead the church back in the direction of the apostolic faith, biblical doctrine, and ethics. A truly forlorn hope, I fear.
We need to be clear that Sarah Mullally is a compromise candidate, and the compromise she represents is not a via media between the more evangelical and the more liberal wings of the CofE but between the more liberal and the “middle.” And she may, indeed, bring the “middle” with her, a reason perhaps for her appointment but of little comfort to the biblical Christian in the Church of England.
We must be under no illusion: Bishop Mullally has voted on each and every occasion for the most liberal positions on sexual ethics; although, to be fair, she did not sign a letter demanding that clergy be allowed to enter same-sex partnerships while remaining in office, which was signed by both of the other leading women candidates for Canterbury, the Bishops of Gloucester and Chelmsford. Hence my point about compromise.
Bishop Mullally is also the establishment candidate. She is viewed as “a safe pair of hands” (you know, just like Jesus was) and was a protégé of Justin Welby, who was obsessed with women in prominent positions irrespective of conviction, competence, or training. (For example, he tried to appoint the former chief executive of the Post Office, Paula Vennels, who was embroiled in one of the most appalling corporate scandals in modern British history, to the post of Bishop of London.)
In 1999, at the age of 37, Mullally was appointed Chief Nursing Officer for England, precisely the sort of profile that would appeal to Justin Welby—public sector, civil service, lack of real-world experience. Hence, she was fast-tracked as an ordained minister. Minimal theological training, then full-time curacy, a short period as an incumbent (that is, actually in charge of a parish, we should be grateful for small mercies), appointment to the staff of Salisbury Cathedral (never a hot bed of biblical truth), suffragan bishop (i.e., a junior bishop assisting a diocesan), and then straight to Bishop of London and now Canterbury.
There is a clear lack of substantial theological training (in significant contrast to her predecessor in London, Bishop Richard Chartres) or long parish experience, but she will be good at speaking to the nation about the NHS, migration, food banks, and poverty. Perhaps what we have here is pragmatism over principle; there has been nothing notably biblical, theological, or even spiritual in Bishop Sarah’s press interviews to date, apart from “love.”
The emphasis on management, structure, and socio-political involvement is clearly at the forefront of this appointment, in contrast to biblical teaching, ethics, a passion for preaching the gospel in the parish, or theological depth. So, again, do not expect much to change.
Is there hope for the Church of England? This remains an open question. The headline in the Evangelical Times (the newspaper representing independent evangelicalism) that “the Anglican rot set in long ago” is undoubtedly correct. The appointment, of course, ignores completely the male episcopal headship question, but as conservative evangelicals in the Church of England have long recognized, even that departure from biblical truth set in decades ago with now-routine appointments of women clergy to lead churches, never mind dioceses as bishops.
Naturally, one strand of opinion, indeed the tradition in which the Evangelical Times stands, is that there must be separation from such heresy. It is a point that is carrying more weight. There are many who have left the Church of England, a steady “drip, drip” of individual resignations, as well as some churches and pastors joining organizations such as the Anglican Mission in England, a faithful, biblical expression of Anglicanism but one outside the Church of England.
Others are attracted to Rome, with its ethical certainty of teaching, the unwillingness to compromise with the culture on pro-life issues, theological depth, and passion for worship. There is some evidence of what is called by some a “quiet revival,” bringing new worshippers as well as defectors from a failed Protestantism to Rome.
There is also that large group of evangelicals, conservative and otherwise, who believe there is still a place for them within the Church of England. I personally used to be sympathetic to this position, but am increasingly skeptical about it and believe we either have passed or are very close to passing the point of no “orthodox” return. Many evangelicals, however, still believe that the bishops will make special provision for them—but they won’t, because they do not have to, as the liberal position on sexuality is that of a large majority of the bishops. They are also convinced that the synod will reject further liberalization and reassert biblical doctrine; there is perhaps a little more hope here, as both clergy and laity on the synod seem willing to block further progress on same-sex relationships.
However, the status quo encouraged by the bishops will be very difficult to reverse, and we thus face the problem of a compromised church that preaches and practices an unbiblical “gospel.”
Another issue to be confronted is that fact that the CofE is still extraordinarily top-heavy. The number of full-time clergy—parish ministers plus chaplains—amounts to approximately 7,500 in 2025, compared to approximately 8,700 in 2020, a reduction of some 14%, not nearly enough. At least 25% of clergy are now women. The number of bishops, 103, in 2025 compared to 108 in 2020 represents barely a change at all. A recent statement of needs (job description for a new bishop in a vacant diocese) revealed 90 clergy and 50 central diocesan staff plus some 30 other externally funded posts. These statistics are ridiculous and reinforce the image of a structurally overweight and managerial church.
And yet … there still is hope in God and with respect to the Church of England for a spiritual revitalization of active parish ministry—the essential ministry of teaching, preaching, prayer, worship, spiritual growth, and living the Christian life.
May I offer a few ideas for the new archbishop? Cut at least 10 bishop posts to match reduction in clergy. Limit terms of office for bishops—10 years and then back to a parish. Maximum ratio of central staff to parish ministers should be 25%, that is, for 80 clergy, no more than 20 staff members. All released funding should support local parish ministry. Plant congregations in village halls and Bibles in every church. Install teaching elder posts in every deanery.
You get the idea: change from the bottom up. Spiritual revival will flow only from establishing a vital spiritual life in every community: praying, teaching, caring for the people. Pronouncements on the divinity of the NHS or the gender of God will not help.
I don’t want this to be purely a negative assessment. As Bishop of London, Mullally has been respectful to and honored those opposed to the ordination of women. To her credit, she has not sought to impose her authority. Similarly, she has been highly effective in leading the opposition to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, commenting in the debate in the House of Lords of her concern “for those who will face internal and subtle pressure to end their lives in the absence of adequate palliative and social care, or to avoid being a burden to their families. I understand the fear of many that they may be offered free assisted death before they are offered the care and equipment that they may live.”
Our fear, however, is that her point of principle is more on the pro-choice side of abortion, assisted dying, etc., and that her current opposition is merely pragmatic. Is her real point that once real palliative care is made available, assisted dying then becomes an ethically acceptable choice?
The real problem with the new archbishop’s appointment is that we still need someone who stands on the bedrock foundation of Scripture: doctrine, ethics, and the true meaning of the gospel for the forgiveness of sins. We need someone deeply rooted in the historic faith presented by the Church of England fathers and of the Bible, one able to articulate the centrality of salvation through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. If we do not have that, do we have a church at all?
Pray for Bishop Sarah.
