Why Sarah Mullally’s Appointment as Archbishop Is Controversial: A Biblical and Pastoral Objection

Today, Wednesday 25 March 2026, we witnessed something that has never taken place before. Dame Sarah Elisabeth Mullally was officially installed as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury—the first woman to hold this office in the history of the Church of England.

In her sermon, delivered to a packed Canterbury Cathedral, she acknowledged the Church’s failures in safeguarding, saying, “We hold victims and survivors in our hearts and in our prayers.”

The recent confirmation of Sarah Mullally as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury has marked a historic moment in the life of the Church of England, as she is the first woman to hold this office. Yet for many Christians committed to a traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture and orthodox Anglican ministry, this milestone raises legitimate concerns on theological, ecclesiological, and pastoral grounds.

The Scriptural Case Against Female Bishops

A central theological objection is that Scripture does not authorize women to serve as bishops, a point held by many conservative evangelicals, complementarians, and several provinces of the global Anglican Communion.

The New Testament places distinct pastoral and teaching responsibilities on elders/bishops that Scripture exclusively assigns to qualified men. The Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:12, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man…” The Bible further says in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, “An overseer, then, must be above reproach…” where “overseer” refers to a bishop. Titus 1:5–7 affirms the same qualities for elders/bishops.

In the early Church, bishops were implicitly male in structure and practice. Where the New Testament describes ordination and pastoral authority, it assigns these roles to men (e.g., Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:1–13; Titus 1:5–9). Thus traditionalists argue that a male episcopate reflects the biblical pattern established for church order and authority.

What is a Bishop and Why Gender Roles Matter

In Anglican polity the bishop is not merely an administrative official but a shepherd with spiritual, doctrinal, and teaching authority over clergy and laity in a diocese. A bishop is called to guard the faith once delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 1:3), to offer oversight (“episkope”), and to model Christ-like pastoral maturity (cf. 1 Pet 5:2–4).

Where Scripture places restrictions on teaching authority based on gender (as in 1 Timothy 2:12), critics argue this directly impacts whether women should occupy episcopal office. They warn that redefining the episcopacy in a way that differs from Scripture contributes to confusion about church authority, particularly when Anglican doctrine historically took Scripture as normative.

Serious Safeguarding Concerns and the Alan Griffin Case

Beyond theological objections, critics have emphasised past safeguarding failures, not as abstract issues but as matters of real pastoral consequence. One of the most serious cases involves the late Revd Alan Griffin, a priest in the Diocese of London who tragically took his own life following allegations that were later judged to have been handled poorly. According to documents and commentary circulated by critics Bishop Mullally, while Bishop of London, reportedly retained a file of unproven allegations about Revd Alan Griffin for over two years and did not investigate the allegations to ascertain the truth as critics assert. Coroner Mary Hassell was said to have criticised the Church’s approach to his case. Mullally was also accused of sharing sensitive material with others improperly, and of incorrectly stating that police were investigating Griffin, which was not the case.

For many, these alleged failures reflect a lack of pastoral care and proper safeguarding protocol, raising the question: should someone with such controversies at the heart of their episcopal ministry be elevated to the highest office of the Church of England?

Recent Objections by the Rev'd Paul Williamson

On 28 January 2026, during the Confirmation of Election service for Mullally at St Paul’s Cathedral, the Revd Paul Williamson publicly raised an objection, the first in centuries, by proclaiming “I object!” from his seat, citing safeguarding concerns, including the handling of the Alan Griffin case. He was escorted from the cathedral by officials.

Williamson’s protest was grounded not merely in dissatisfaction, but in what he described as formal impediments to her appointment rooted in pastoral failure and institutional unwillingness to engage transparently with serious allegations.

Why Evangelicals Are Particularly Concerned

Many evangelicals within the Church of England and beyond have articulated multiple objections. They see the appointment of a woman to the episcopate as a departure from biblical order. They argue that leadership roles with doctrinal authority, particularly those involving oversight of teaching and clergy, are not biblically permissive for women (cf. 1 Tim 2:12; 3:1–2). They point to Mullally’s theological liberalism on issues such as same-sex blessings and societal controversies, which they contend diminish the Church’s fidelity to biblical teaching.

Groups such as the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) and other conservative bodies have publicly registered their “deep displeasure” at her appointment, stating it undermines biblical authority and risks uniting a globally divided Communion. For these evangelicals, the concern is not simply about gender, but about what they regard as biblical fidelity, doctrinal clarity, and moral leadership. They argue that an Archbishop should exemplify the teaching and pastoral priorities of Scripture without compromise.

Final Thoughts

The appointment of Dame Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury represents, for some Christians, not only a historic first but a departure from what they discern as clear biblical teaching on church order and leadership. Coupled with serious questions over safeguarding transparency and pastoral accountability, and recent public protest from within the clergy, critics argue that her elevation should prompt deep reflection about the Church’s commitment to Scripture, its care for victims and accused alike, and the nature of episcopal leadership in times of crisis.

Whether one agrees with these objections or not, they are rooted in Scriptural convictions and pastoral concerns about the nature of Church leadership and the responsibilities entrusted to those who bear spiritual authority.