What does the Church of England think about the fact that it is established? How does it go about defending the indefensible? The growing consensus among Anglican leaders is that this seeming anachronism is a crucial defence against an aggressive secularism, a guarantee that Christianity exists in that inescapable cliche of religious discourse, “the public square”. The Bishop of Durham gave his version of this line in a lecture last week (pdf).
He began by reflecting on the crisis of our democratic system. For politics to regain health, we need to rethink the role of religion in public life. The key problem is that “we have done our best to banish God from the public square”. Hardline secularists have had too much sway ”“ “and, absurdly, there are some Christians who have gone along for the ride, still believing the old fable that God and government don’t mix.” Since the Enlightenment, secular democratic ideology has edged God out of the political sphere, he says, and only a weak form of religion, deism, was permitted.
Should the CoE be disestablished? I don’t know the answer to this question but every time I read the reader’s responses, they seem very angry at the CoE. I wonder who has more respect in England, the ABC or Richard Dawkins?
Same old, same old stuff from liberal spokesman Theo Hobson, who here vainly tries to take +N.T. Wright to task, with a shrill critique of the great bishop’s fine speech last week. I followed the link and read [i]”God and Government,”[/i] a marvelous, typically feisty and wieghty 12-page theological reflection on why Christians can’t be apolitical, and especially providing us yet another manifesto on the essential role of Christians in calling rulers of any society to account, in light of biblical ideals about true justice and the coming judgment and Kingdom of God.
For instance, Hobson sums up the dispute this way:
“[i]The essential question is this: should Christianity accept the thrust of liberal ideology and reform itself away from the Constantinian model?[/i]”
I’ll interject my own reply to that, before going on. My answer to his question would be: Of course we can’t accept the thrust of liberal ideology (without ceasing to be Christian), but yes, we should reform the Church away from the now obsolete Constantinian model. However, that’s for totally different reasons than Hobson has in mind.
And Hobson glibly proceeds to make sweeping, arrogant (but revealing) statements such as these:
“[i]For an established church is necessarily at odds with the liberalism that almost all of us sign up to…[/i]” Very telling, that “almost all of us.”
And Hobson, in rightly noting that an established church like the CoE is “rooted in an illiberal principle,” goes on to make a very illiberal claim himself, when he dismisses out of hand classic Christianity by asserting that [i]”liberal people are confirmed in their rejection of this religion.[/i]” Well, that must settle matters and end the debate, doesn’t it? The cultural elite despises traditional Christianity, so out it must go.
Ironically, N.T. Wright is a true giant of a thinker. In comparison, Theo Hobson is a mere pygmy.
Kendall, I hope you’ll post Wright’s paper (in PDF format) as a separate thread. It’s vintage NT Wright material, pithy and powerful, with some wonderfully eloquent and memorable parts.
But getting back to Hobson’s response to it, what I find most interesting is how his rant functions as an index of how so many supposed liberals are actually so illiberal themselves, and how it displays their characteristic deep hostility to classic Christianity, which they wishfully imagine is now passe and utterly discredited, when it’s actually Liberalism itself that suffers that fate.
David Handy+
Neither the Bishop of Durham nor Hobson seem to be able to avoid the snotty comment.
Here is, from Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical, “Deus et Caritas”, a succinct statement on the proper relationship of Church to State. “We have seen that the formation of just structures is not directly the duty of the Church, but belongs to the world of politics, the sphere of the autonomous use of reason. The Church has an indirect duty here, in that she is called to contribute to the purification of reason and to the reawakening of those moral forces without which just structures are neither established nor prove effective in the long run. The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful.”
Remind me again – which establishment is illiberal?
I can only concur with David Handy (#2) regarding Hobson’s provenance. Many of his generation are de rigeur ‘liberals’ who most unfortunately have yet to deconstruct their own ideology – a sweet irony! – even as they think they have adequately deconstructed the Christian Faith.
Thereafter, they have become (note past tense indeed!) mere flotsam before any “wind of doctrineâ€. Such a “rant†as this is more revealing than it is informative of how to engage in either constitutional reform of UK or the reformation of any church institution – let alone the CoE itself.
Perhaps if Hobson might learn what it means to “stand firmâ€, etc. holding onto a high Christology and a fulsome grasp of Christian atonement (so Philippians 1-3), he and his ilk might have a Rock for weathering the storms of the 21st C and the means of helping others to construct viable forms of new life amidst these great changes.
#1, don’t expect many people to give much thought to either the Archbishop or Richard Dawkins, a huge number would be much more interested in more ephemeral things.
When reading The Guardian one has to remember that this is the news source of the intellectual left, and therefore expect anything from such an editorial stable to be slanted by these presuppositions. The responses of readers regarding the C. of E. are to be expected — they are only feeding back what they have been fed over many years.
The give away as far as Hobson is concerned is his dismissal of the past. This is a predominant mindset in Britain, which has more interest in today and tomorrow than the journey that has gotten us here, and how it might have shaped and formed us. As far as the left is concerned, taking history and the provenance of our time seriously could force them to reexamine their value judgments.
#6 RichardKew
Very well observed.
As for Theo Hobson, I read him with interest. In some senses he is right; so often our mindset is to man the barricades rather than go out with the good news. Hobson who puts so much effort and learning into his religion, I hope will one day able to embrace completely the revelation of joy and fullness which lies at its heart, if he can ever let go of the ultimate emptiness of the unpowerful god of the liberalised modernity he espouses.
#6.
[blockquote]The give away as far as Hobson is concerned is his dismissal of the past. This is a predominant mindset in Britain….[/blockquote] Since you are parsing sources here, are you referring to those you call the “intellectual left” or the overall mindset in Britain?
The other thing is that I think that the Church of England is not necessarily capable of disestablishment and survival.
The premise of a state church is that there is a parish to cover every citizen of England, with a concommitant duty of each parish priest to take pastoral and Christian care of each person within his ‘cure’. Conversely there is a right for each citizen to expect care from the parish and its priest, whether religious or not, or even Christian. Now that does not mean that a non-Christian is entitled to a Christian wedding etc, but it does mean that if earnestly fitting themselves into the church’s requirements, that they expect to be served by their parish church, and for many who are not fully engaged, yet they still feel that being English, the CofE is part of their identity, and they take a stake to some extent in their local church. An example is the revamped St Peter’s in Brighton where 2 dozen or so would turn up to services, but 6,000 petitioned to prevent its closure.
On top of this there is a network of 19,000 or so churches covering the country. The CofE still tries to maintain a church for each community, and will build new ones in new population centres. Not so long ago in the 19th Century Parliament voted funds for the building of new churches and the state still contributes to the upkeep of both parish churches and cathedrals.
From the CofE’s point of view this is both a boon and a burden. A huge network of old churches, often larger than any conceivable congregation that would or ever has worshipped in them; enormously costly repairs stemming from their protected historical status; the burden on current members of not only maintaining a church but a valuable historic museum item.
Disestablishment would be messy and disasterous for the church, its buildings, and probably its mission, as it would break the link the English feel with it. A disestablished church would end up with the museum pieces, a breach of the links to the country, and probably going on the Church of Wales experience in the 1920’s, loss of assets to the state. All in all we would probably end up like the Church in Wales, bless ’em, struggling even more so than we are at the moment.
Which is, I expect, why the bishops [with one or two notable exceptions] are standing up for the established status of the Church of England, and advocating its use for the re-evangelisation of England and the proper support of its historic buildings.
Pageantmaster,
[blockquote]……with a concommitant [concomitant] duty of each parish priest to take pastoral and Christian care of each person within his ‘cure’. Conversely there is a right for each citizen to expect care from the parish and its priest, whether religious or not, or even Christian.[/blockquote] This is a fascinating fact I was unaware of. This is like an additional safety net provided by the church. Do you believe the church is abiding by this obligation even in the the Muslim communities? Do most citizens know about this? has the church ever been sued for failing its fiduciary duties?
#10 Dcn Dale
I think you will find it not in a set of legal obligations, but in the nature of the Church of England and the grant of ‘the cure of souls’ of all within the parish boundaries to the parish priest. That is the cure of souls, wherever they are along the path of Christian faith.
Yes, I do believe that the Muslim communities do receive care from the church. Indeed the church is often the first body to do so for immigrants of whatever faith, which often gets us into trouble with the authorities.
There is the saying that the Church is the only body which exists for the benefit of its non-members.
#11. Pageantmaster,
[blockquote]There is the saying that the Church is the only body which exists for the benefit of its non-members.[/blockquote]
And they exist so that we may minister to them.
Pageantmaster and Richard Kew,
Thanks for chiming in here. It’s always helpful for those of you on the eastern side of the Atlantic to let us Americans know how things look to a Brit. Not least when it comes to cherishing your state church heritage and the unique opportunities your established status provides. I didn’t mean to suggest any minimizing of that above, but I will add that Pageantmaster’s apprehensions about the CoE surviving possible disestablishment are perfectly understandable. The Welsh case is one cautionary tale, and so is a case I know much better, namely that of colonial Virginia. When Thomas Jefferson pushed through the disestablishment of Anglicanism in Virginia in 1785, it almost finished off the Episcopal Church here.
In the post Revolutionary War era, the former state church was already struggling with huge problems: including widespread resentment of how many clergy had been Tories and a general public reaction against anything so patently British. But when state funding was abruptly cut off, the Episcopal Church went backrupt immediately and about 90% of the churches closed. Anglicanism almost died out in Virginia (and many leaders gloomily expected it would disappear completely).
But in the end, disestablishment turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Under the remarkable leadership of two extremely gifted and dedicated evangelical bishops, Richard Channing Moore (bishop 1811-1841) and his legendary assistant (1829-1841) and successor William Meade (1841-1862), the Diocese of VA more than recovered. It prospered greatly and became far more spiritually healthy and vibrant than ever before, and it eventually grew again to be the largest and most mission-minded diocese in America.
You know the English context and situation far better than I ever will, Pageantmaster, and thus you may well be right. But the miraculous recovery of Virginia after disestablishment does at least suggest to me that diestablishment need not be feared as necessarily spelling the end for the mother church. Of course, it might prove to be the doom of Anglicanism in the land of its birth. Or it just might give it a whole new lease on life. After all, we Christians believe in a God who raises the dead!
Respectfully,
David Handy+
David Handy+
Intriguingly, David Handy repeats what Rowan Williams himself said in the mid 1990’s on a trip to Melbourne, when discussing his then Welsh experience. And while I see no evidence to date that this is on his agenda for CoE, my own friends with whom I trained and who still minister in Wales tell me they enjoy the freedom that disestablishment has brought in the fullness of time.
Of course there are huge issues regarding ‘a parish for every citizen’: the CoE is not just a Christendom institution however; it is also possible to use this archaism as a missionary model. This too I have myself joyfully witnessed first hand. All of which merely suggests this question of disestablishment is not just double-edged but also too complex to call. At least, IMHO.
#13 Rev. Handy
I think the problem is that the CofE is set up to do one thing as a national established church and you are now on disestablishment asking it to do something entirely different: to forget its role at the centre of communities and national life. It is geared up to that with a very expensive structure of nationwide museum quality churches in most communities and some huge cathedrals where national services of thanksgiving, memorials for the military and civic services do take place. There is a structure of choirs, schools, and other community services which it runs as part of that.
In disestablishment, you still have that structure, but want to run what will be a smaller denominational church. The community functions will probably be taken away along with assets as happened with the Church in Wales, which had to mount a massive fund raising campaign to secure its finances.
More than that in my view, although we are pretty poor at using the gifts God has given us as the established church, we will lose the opportunities for evangelism that it presents to the many many people who attend events in the church.
#14 art
[blockquote] Intriguingly, David Handy repeats what Rowan Williams himself said in the mid 1990’s on a trip to Melbourne, when discussing his then Welsh experience. And while I see no evidence to date that this is on his agenda for CoE, my own friends with whom I trained and who still minister in Wales tell me they enjoy the freedom that disestablishment has brought in the fullness of time.[/blockquote]
Rowan Williams has made some ill-judged comments that he is not bothered if the CofE is disestablished, which rightly got shot down by everybody from me to the Bishop of Durham [although the latter was rather more circuitous and polite than I].
There is no evidence that either Wales or Scotland have prospered from disestablishment. The four dioceses of the Church of England which became the Church in Wales, now have become six dioceses. Notwithstanding 50% more bishops, they now have only 47,000 members and are really struggling. The Scottish Episcopal Church never recovered from disestablishment a few hundred years ago and now has 38,000 members. Both churches, notwithstanding remaining provinces of the Anglican Communion, are more comparable with the size of some English dioceses.
David Handy mentions Virginia. I am glad it managed to recover, well at least until the reigns of Bishops Schori and Lee, but there is no reason to suppose that the Church of England would be any better off in mission, were it to shoot itself in the foot by advocating disestablishment. The fact that it is the national church of a still Christian established country is part of our DNA, including mine.
Were we to grasp the opportunities our position gives us instead of concentrating on managing decline, who knows what might be possible. Here and there, good things are happening. Churches which know what they are about and commit themselves accordingly are growing. What we say still is listened to at a senior level in the executive and legislature. There have been international movements springing out of the Church of England: Alpha, Christianity Explored, Langham ministries, New Wine and others. I still think that God has a use for us in our present form.
Thanks, Pageantmaster (#15), for your thoughtful, extensive reply.
As I said above, you certainly know the English situation far better than I ever will, and you may well be right that voluntary disestablishment would be both disastrous and irresponsible. There are unquestionably advantages as well as disadvantages to being the established church, and I wish the CoE the best.
But the day may well come when disestablishment is forced on the CoE, as happened in Virginia. That is seemingly what has already happened with the formerly established Lutherna Church in Norway and Sweden.
Regardless, I’m grateful for the fact that the CoE, diminished as she may be, is much, much stronger than the Episcopal Church as a whole ever was in America, where we’ve tended to be “the country club at prayer.” And I heartily agree with you that God is almost certainly not finished with the CoE yet.
David Handy+