Canterbury Trails...

As an atheist, I can watch amusedly from the sidelines as various men in frocks jostle for the top the job in the Church of England. In the past, the competition for the Canterbury Bishopric has been, to the casual observer, rather gentlemanly, unlike that for the Vatican job, which seems almost sinister and has a history that included the Borgias.

Williams...or Father Jack?
"Girls! Feck! Drink!"

But here we are, almost ten years on from the delightfully dotty, wierdie-beardie Rowan Williams' enthronement and there is already spin, with "camps" being established and bookies offering odds. In the end, as with the selection for the Papacy, the decision lies with God, apparently. Regardless of who wins in these battles, the churches will acknowledge that the politics and electioneering and the eventual voting in synod or college of cardinals had been directed by God. So...why doesn't God just make up his or her mind and let everyone know? Because he or she isn't really there; that's why.

There can be as many arguments as you like between say, the pope and Richard Dawkins, about the existence of God but in the end the atheist has to win because if God existed, he (I'm fed up with being PC about gender, so it's just 'he' from now on - small 'h') has so many opportunities to prove it and fails singularly to take them every time; the selection of his instruments on Earth being just one example. Many people of faith argue that their god (notice I've gone for the small 'g' now too) "moves in mysterious ways", which has the added bonus of him being able to direct our actions, when it's convenient, as in the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury. And, even when god does make a decision that he'd like everyone to go along with, he chooses to deliver it in these mysterious ways, like appearing as a tree on fire or killing his own kid (Jesus, not a goat sacrifice). This is just wierd. It's 2012! Why not an email or a tweet? "God here. Next Arch B Cant - Sentamu LOL :-)" would do, surely?

"Shit...bloody TalkTalk
No fucking signal again..."

However, ignoring the god decision-making thing for a bit, there will still be bishops doing battle to be "arch". And the battle lines will be drawn on the issues that are testing the Church of England right now. The main two points upon which disagreements abound appear to be the ordination of women bishops and same-sex marriages. I'm sure there are many other issues but these are the ones that make the dogmatic headlines. If I were god, I'd send a tweet ordering the appointment of a lesbian to Lambeth Palace. Problems sorted. But I can't be something that doesn't exist...or can I? Heidegger might have known.

According to Paddy Power betting, John Sentamu (Bishop of York) is the front runner at 11/8. Short odds for a man whose repsonse to the question "..are you going to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury..." was a McEnroesque, "...You can't be serious!.." Maybe he was just trying to lengthen the odds to have a bit a flutter. It was hilarious to see the The Sun backing Sentamu this week and suggesting that their support had "...nothing to do with [him] being a Sun on Sunday columnist..." Second favourite is Richard Chartres, the current Bishop of London who had a bit of a populist thing going with 'Occupy'. He's at 7/2, along with Christopher Cocksworth, the Bishop of Coventry. Both in at 6/1 are Graham James, Bishop of Norwich and Nick Baines of Bradford. Baines hasn't got a prayer (well, maybe he has, I suppose, given his job) because you just can't take a really top job and be successful if you shorten your first name...especially when it becomes 'Nick'. And James of Norwich hasn't even got his own Wikipedia page, so he can't possibly win. The Bishop of Durham is at 10/1. He's called Justin Portal Welby! Worth a punt, I'd have thought, just to see him enter the cathedral portal for his coronation and see how the fawning BBC commentators play on the word, perhaps. But is that what they do with Archbishops of Canterbury? Do they crown them? Or are they mitred, like wood joints? After that lot there's the bishops of Bristol, Sheffield, Chelmsford, Salisbury, Truro and load of also-rans (20/1 bar). There's a Bishop of Chelmsford? Well, I never!

No...I'm sorry...is it me, or
does this just look bananas?

Serious Question: Does the next Archbishop of Canterbury have to be already a bishop? Maybe there's something in canon law that says that this is the case but the Church of England is a business and would seem only fair that employment law applies. The job needs to be advertised to allcomers. OK, there will be certain things that candidates will need to demonstrate like a belief in god (possibly), some faith and maybe a degree in divinity. But let's face it, who hasn't lied on their cv? The Church of England needs a bit of a kick up the corporate arse. Falling sales, reducing customer base, asset value diminishment, poor media coverage to name but a few of their key performance indicators that need boosting. And that's not even mentioning their appaling performance on employee diversity.

What the CofE needs is a corporate-savvy saviour, not a bishop!

So here are Fourth Columnist's suggestions for a non-bishopy leader of the Church of England; someone that can put the ailing business back on track.

First of all, as all Anglicans have become used to having a wierdy-beardie in charge, then Richard Branson would be the "comfort candidate". True, his 'Virgin' brand has the smack of the enemy, Roman Catholicism, but Branson is the only one likely to be 'closer to god' soon enough, when his spaceship takes off and, hopefully, comes back. Safe pair of hands.

Next, and the man most likely to to reinvigorate the CofE brand, is Sir Terry Leahy. After sorting out Tesco, Sir Terry has the point of sale experience to add billions to the church. For 'Club Card' read 'God Card'. If you can't get to a church, then for a small fee, prayers can be delivered to/from your home! Let's have some more churches on your doorstep...God Express! Nip and out for a quick worship...you don't have to do the whole weekly sacramental thing! And you can do god online. After all..."Every little helps", doesn't it?

A long shot (seeing he's recently blown with a wife-driven wind over to Rome) but what about Tony? Master of spin, history-maker, peace envoy, christian soldier; ticks all the boxes.

Lord Sugar of Amstrad may be a bit Jewish (and quite short) but he does have a sort of beard and his ace-in-the-hole for candidacy is his ability to send people to hell (you're "fired").

Ian Hislop has completed over a quarter of a century as editor of Private Eye. Time to move on? On the face of it, Hislop is an Anglican. A famous quote of his was, "...I've tried atheism and I can't stick at it...I keep having doubts. That probably sums up my position..." Hislop also appeared at "The Gathering", a religious symposium organised by Rowan Willaims in 2009 and appeared before its audience of over one thousand acolytes. He'd probably have to give up on the Eye editorship, of course, and for that reason alone, I would campaign against his accession to Canterbury. Besides, he's a Magdelen man...

"Please, Ma'am, can I be Archbishop?"

So, without doubt, the only non-bishop, ex-corporate lion that could really have a shot at the Canterbury Bishopric is Fred Goodwin. After all, as it is said repeatedly in the bible, "...god loves a sinner..." But maybe not enough to give one his knighthood back.

When all said and done (cliches apart), the competition for the next incumbent at Lambeth Palace is largely pointless. Less than two per cent of the population of the UK can be arsed to go to a CofE church regularly and most of those will be dead in the next twenty years on the basis of the demographic distribution, regardless of the increase in human longevity in the UK. Rowan Williams' decision to step down after ten years and at the relatively young age of 61 is probably indicative of the awfulness of the job. The incumbent is on a hiding to nothing and, in the case of the present one, he does actually seem to be a decent bloke, racked with doubt about the state of the church and in taking an academic position at Cambridge as an alternative rather than simply retiring, is saying that there is more he wishes to do without the shit that goes with the Archbishopric of Canterbury. I hope he enjoys his release.

Whomsoever is selected for this poisoned chalice will then have to have their position agreed to by the queen (small 'q'), who, for some anachronistic reason, seems to be in charge of the Church of England...oh, hang on, sorry, I forgot...the UK monarch has also been appointed by god, but not by text, email or tweet, seeing as they hadn't been invented at the time of the successive line several centuries ago. No, god just decided that it would be OK for a very small number of people to have inherited privileges..for ever..apparently. So the queen, as god's monarchic vassal on Earth (which is clearly just the British bit) has the veto. She also has the constitutional veto on everything else as far as the government of this country is concerned and when she dies, this affrontery to justice will be handed on to His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. The only letters missing from this list of titles are V, X and Z.  Anybody else out there that can claim more than twenty-three letters in their 'name'?

I know there isn't one...but, for fuck's sake...god help us!