In his ministry as Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. George Carey has immense responsibilities. He is the Primate of All England, the Metropolitan of the Province of Canterbury and the Bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury. He also functions as the president of the worldwide Anglican Communion, as an ex officio member of the House of Lords and as a spokesman and participant in various ecumenical matters. With these and other responsibilities, it is no wonder that a review into the future development of the See of Canterbury will be conducted.

Commissioned by the archbishop himself, the review will examine the present responsibilities and resources of the office of archbishop and reflect on its further evolution in order that the duties and functions of the Archbishop of Canterbury can continue to be carried out effectively. We should be careful not to read too much into the review. Two of Archbishop Carey's predecessors' responsibilities were reviewed, and it is a natural tendency for the ministries and responsibilities of church leaders to undergo periodic review.

Anglicans expect much from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some look to him to resolve disputes; others turn to him to issue proclamations on important issues. In order for Archbishop Carey and his successors to carry out their responsibilities effectively, a review at this time could prove to be beneficial. It is, to use the archbishop's own words, "both prudent and timely."

In his ministry as Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. George Carey has immense responsibilities. He is the Primate of All England, the Metropolitan of the Province of Canterbury and the Bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury. He also functions as the president of the worldwide Anglican Communion, as an ex officio member of the House of Lords and as a spokesman and participant in various ecumenical matters. With these and other responsibilities, it is no wonder that a review into the future development of the See of Canterbury will be conducted.

Commissioned by the archbishop himself, the review will examine the present responsibilities and resources of the office of archbishop and reflect on its further evolution in order that the duties and functions of the Archbishop of Canterbury can continue to be carried out effectively. We should be careful not to read too much into the review. Two of Archbishop Carey's predecessors' responsibilities were reviewed, and it is a natural tendency for the ministries and responsibilities of church leaders to undergo periodic review.

Anglicans expect much from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some look to him to resolve disputes; others turn to him to issue proclamations on important issues. In order for Archbishop Carey and his successors to carry out their responsibilities effectively, a review at this time could prove to be beneficial. It is, to use the archbishop's own words, "both prudent and timely."