How is Leadership Theologically Understood and Practised Across the Church of England?

The word ‘leadership’ is widely used across the Church of England and has become increasingly prevalent since the 1990’s, yet not all users of this word hold the same definition for it. This thesis demonstrates that various understandings of leadership are held across the Church of England, that the differences between these understandings is not often recognised, and that this creates confusions which hamper any attempt to have a serious conversation about leadership in the Church.

By carefully attending to the ways in which leadership is spoken about in different contexts across the Church of England, I have uncovered various kinds of differences. This thesis demonstrates that there are confusions about the terminology used, incompatible ideas about what leadership is, multiple theological interpretations of those ideas, and differing ecclesial practices surrounding them. The multiplicity of theological interpretations of leadership in the Church of England reflects not only the complexity of ecclesial practice but also the lack of a coherent and shared conceptual framework.

I have diagnosed these complexities by uncovering two ‘voices’ to converse with one another. The first voice is a form of normative voice, uncovered by researching the understandings of leadership expressed in the Church of England’s liturgy and official documents. The second voice is a form of operant voice, uncovered through empirical research interviewing members of the Church of England who are involved in parish leadership.

This conversation reveals four recurring areas of confusion: the ambiguous relationship between discipleship and leadership; contrasting views of management and the role of managerialism; conflicting understandings of leadership as either functional or influential; and divergent perspectives on how ordination relates to leadership. Each of these themes is examined to disentangle the confusions and suggest clearer, more constructive ways of talking about leadership. Without this work it is all but impossible to have a good conversation about leadership in the Church of England, as the church does not currently hold even the basic elements of shared categories, language or experience necessary for such a conversation.