Well, OK, we’re not Iran, but our constitution does have a theocratic structure. I think this holds us back, impedes us, like an old invisible injury. Like a subtle poison in the blood, it quietly harms us. Most people seem unaware of it. Even Hazel Blears, who recently said that we are a secular democracy.
Yesterday a seminar was held at the UCL Constitution Unit to mark the launch of a book on the issue by Bob Morris. Church and State in 21st Century Britain is a meticulous analysis of the situation. No such study can be entirely neutral, but Morris seems to have no religious agenda; his aim is to point out that establishment is at odds with the principle of religious equality, making it “anomalous to the point of unsustainability”. He is wary of the term “disestablishment” but he does advocate the big reform ”“ ending the monarch’s need to be Anglican.
Just do away with the monarchy. Problem solved.
Almost no one in England cares. Until a sufficient number of folks care (outside or inside the church) no Government will give Parliamentary time to the task.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Yet, I think the Anglican Church DID have a version of the inquisition, thousands killed for not acknowledging Henry as head of the Church in England and for refusing to repudiate the Catholic Church. Under Mary (I think) the opposite — executions of those who refused to return to Catholicism.
When Theo gets on this subject (one of his favorites), I get nervous. What he really wants when he speaks of “separation of Church and State” is for both to be equally secular. Most of the population just isn’t there and probably never will be.
And yet, hasn’t religion flourished far better in our country, where there is no state-approved church, and where different faiths have had to compete in the marketplace of ideas?
Looking at the pitiful state of religious affairs in places like the UK and Scandinavia, I’m glad to be in the USA.
I thought Hobson [i]liked[/i] establishment because according to his lights it put the church in its place, under secular control.
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
Ah yes, the Guardian. Well they would say that wouldn’t they?
Being very decidedly not Anglican, I can’t believe I am about to write this… but here goes. I think Britain should think twice before disestablishing the CofE and in particular removing the obligation to be Anglican from the monarch and those in the line of succession. Why would an Orthodox Christian take such a position (particularly given HRH Prince Charles’ well known affinity for the Orthodox Church?
Because it would weaken Britain’s already tenuous connections to Christianity. Muslims are the fastest growing segment of the population. The monarchy is just about the only official link Britain retains with Christianity. If the Queen is stripped of her standing as head of the CofE what exactly will transpire when she dies?
Will the coronation be an ecumenical affair with mullahs helping to set the crown on Charles’ head? And if it is an Anglican affair as before won’t there be a huge outcry from the “non-represented” religious sects? Maybe they will not even have a coronation at all.
As much as I would like the possibility of an Orthodox Christian or a Roman Catholic wearing the British crown, I see no way to accomplish this without causing great harm to Britain’s frayed cultural connections to Christianity in general.
HM the Queen is the world’s last reigning anointed Christian monarch. As anti-libertarian as this sounds I think it is imperative that the monarchy remain firmly Christian. And the only way that can happen is if it stays Anglican.
Sigh…
John
The British government has been overly accommodating to Islamic sensibilities to the point of allowing shariah law. The issue of separating church (albeit mosque) and state is dead on arrival vis a vis Islam.
It has always baffled me that there is so much support within the Church of England for establishment because it seems to me that this is a ball and chain around its feet. Why? Because (a) It means that, as a state church, it has to be all things to all people, and must encompass such a vast array of opinion that it can never say what it truly believes. A very broad church means you can drive a cart and horses through every Christian doctrine. (b) The Church becomes identified with the powerful people, the comfortable people in society. If you read Trollope you will see the problem has not changed in 300 years. Yes, I write as a Roman Catholic, but I am also aware that where the Catholic Church has cosied up to power (eg Franco’s Spain; Ireland) once the authoritarian state is removed there is a backlash against the Church. To Leighton I would say that, on the contrary, separation of church and state might make it easier to defend our society against Islam because the argument at present is so often, the church has its privileges, why not the mosque? This is how we ended up with state-supported Muslim schools. It is tragic that the Church of England has so little faith in its own future as to be unable to cut itself free from what are now pretty weak links with the state. The Church even chooses its own bishops. If it comes down to little more than a ceremonial role, surely time to move on?
#11 Terry Tee
I think that the problem is the relatively recent separation of the instruments of state from Christianity. In the early 20thC, government, the legislature and the judicature were proud of their Christian principles and faith. Christian principles underlaid our laws. Two world wars pretty much put paid to that, as for the rest of society. The last remaining Christian link is to the current monarch.
I am not aware that being the established church cramps our style in any way. If anything it gives us influence and a central role in the life of the nation which is a huge opportunity for witness and evangelism.
That we take this for granted and make so little of it is not the fault of the state or of the establishment of the CofE, but of ourselves. I think we should be wary of casting away this huge opportunity.
The other risk of disestablishment is that the CofE will be stripped of its assets such as schools, land etc as happened with Wales early in the 1920’s; something from which the Church in Wales never really recovered and which followed the same pattern as the disestablishment of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales have a membership hovering around 50,000 making them smaller than most English dioceses.
So we should be careful what we wish for, whether as Anglicans or Christians. We might just get it!.
From Hansard 27 January 1997 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo970127/debtext/70127-05.htm). Hansard is the official record of Parliamentary proceedings:
#13 Thank you driver8
Queen Anne’s Bounty:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/ccorigins/qabbooklet.pdf