Perhaps the even more serious challenge looming relates to same-sex relationships and marriage. When in 2004 the Civil Partnership Act gave those entering legal same-sex partnerships fundamentally the same legal status as husbands and wives there were two exceptions: there could be no religious ceremony at the registration and marriage remained between a man and a woman. So, for example, a married person undergoing sex reassignment has formally to divorce his spouse before being legally recognised in the new gender and entering a civil partnership with his former spouse.
The former distinction was legally removed last year and discussions are now underway about how to enable civil partnerships on religious premises. Under the pretense of extending religious freedom, the state risks giving support to one perspective within churches’ internal debates on how to respond to civil partnerships by permitting religious premises to apply for authorization to host their registration. While this could create difficulties for a number of denominations, the Church of England as the national, established church will come under particular scrutiny.
Although there will be no compulsion and the Church of England has said it will not seek to gain authorization, conflicts could still result….
The same dynamic that killed TEC is at work in the CoE except the CoE is more vulnerable. The CoE is directly subject to political influence. Eventually conservatives of conscience will be forced to depart the CoE. Those ACs who are currently departing are simply the first wave. Evangelicals who can’t accept WO are next up to walk the plank. In the not too distant future, only liberals and their fellow travelers will remain. Then what? Then the leadership of the CoE can try to figure out how to make budgets without money.
carl
I think that the time is coming much quicker then many people realize when the Church of England will need to push for disestablishment if it wishes to remain a Christian Church and not become a post-Christian tool of a liberal authoritarian government.
I wonder if our friend PageantMaker could offer any thoughts on what conservatives within the CofE are thinking on this subject?
#2 jamesw
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have always believed that disestablishment will be disasterous for both the CofE and probably also for the nation. It will also bring a Republic closer and change the character of this country and my countrymen for whom, whether they go to it regularly or not, feel it is part of who they are. Disestablishment was disasterous for the Church in Wales, and for the Scottish Episcopal Church both of which are dysfunctional fragments.
Be careful what you wish for.
3. Pageantmaster
To avoid dis-establishment, you have to reclaim the CoE for orthodoxy. Otherwise the CoE will face terminal decline as people simply leave. Liberal religion cannot sustain itself over time. There simply aren’t enough liberal religionists to sustain it. So where will the money come from? And how will an imploding institution that cannot pay for itself be able to perform the uniting function you demand of it? What you say about dis-establishment may very well be true. But what current path exists to avoid it?
The primary function of a church is not to shape the character of a country or its citizens. The primary function of a church is not to undergird a monarchy. The primary function of a church is to preach the Gospel. If it will not do that, then it should die – no matter the consequences.
carl
#4 carl
[blockquote]And how will an imploding institution that cannot pay for itself be able to perform the uniting function you demand of it? What you say about dis-establishment may very well be true. But what current path exists to avoid it?[/blockquote]
I don’t know the answer to your questions
[blockquote]The primary function of a church is not to shape the character of a country or its citizens. The primary function of a church is not to undergird a monarchy. The primary function of a church is to preach the Gospel. If it will not do that, then it should die – no matter the consequences.[/blockquote]
These are not mutually exclusive.
All I know is that for the CofE and for the Anglican Communion to have any prospect of coherant survival, Rowan Williams has to go.
“dysfunctional fragment”
Duw Dad, o’r nef : trugarhâ wrthym wir bechaduriaid.
Oddi wrth bob drwg ac anffawd; oddi wrth becchod, oddi wrth ystryw ac ymgyrch y cythraul; oddi wrth dy lid, ac oddi wrth famedigaeth dragywyddol,
Gwared ni, Arylwydd daionus
May I suggest that you consider with apprehension the disestablishment of the Church of Sweden in 2000, where the disestablishment was so managed that the disestablished church was saddled with an institutional framework and form of governance that left the liberals in charge?
Huh. I always knew there was SOMETHING wrong with Welsh. Now we can be sure. But they can sing though, even though they can’t speak. Yrral
Further to my last comment (which has not yet appeared) on the risks of disestablishment under a liberal regime, readers may wish to read my article, published in 2003, on the disestablishment of the Church of Sweden:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-02-036-f
I will paste in one subsection of that article here (and will add that recently the Church of Sweden has decided to allow “same-sex marriage” — in the full and literal sense of that term — in Swedish parish churches, and although no Swedish clergyman will be required to solemnize such “marriages” s/he will have to procure a substitute clergyperson to do it, and that in the “recusant” minister’s parish church):
Disestablishment Under the Liberals
By 1995 both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities determined that the disestablishment of the church was inevitable, and they agreed that it would take effect on January 1, 2000. It was clear to them that “dogmatists†would have to be kept away from positions of authority if the disestablishment were to proceed smoothly. This was the more pressing, as the issue of homosexual “unions†had also now arisen.
Thus, the disestablished church devised means to exclude the opponents of women’s ordination not only from ordination, but also from selection as bishops or promotion of any sort within the ranks of the clergy. Candidates for ordination are now obliged to sign a document affirming the validity of the ordinations of all clergy in the Church of Sweden and signifying the candidate’s willingness to cooperate with any other ordained person in all clerical functions—which, of course, includes worship and sacraments. To deny the validity of some Swedish Church ordinations (i.e., those of women), or even to express doubts about them, suffices to bar a candidate from ordination. As the official line goes, such people must be excluded from ordination because their denials “exclude†those women who have been ordained. A senior clergyman seeking to move to another equivalent pastoral position must likewise sign such a statement.
For the episcopate there is a more elaborate procedure. For starters, only a member of the clergy is eligible for the episcopate. This may seem unobjectionable, but in 1942, when the diocese of Stockholm was created, its first bishop was Manfred Bjorkvist, a layman active in church affairs, who proved to be a great success and an inspired choice. So the new rule looks like a case of “closed shop.†Further, those candidates who survive the initial selection process are sent a questionnaire requiring them to disclose such information as whether they would be prepared to work equally with all persons in the ordained ministry, and whether they would be willing to ordain women. Refusal to provide all the information requested, to reply in the affirmative to such questions, or to respond to the questionnaire at all will cause a candidate to be disqualified from further consideration for the episcopate.
The issue of homosexuality came to the fore with the publication in 1994 of the report, “The Church and Homosexuality.†This report took the liberal line that while same-sex “unions†were not marriages in the Christian sense, the church could and should find a way to bless them. While the assembly never formally discussed the report, the Bishops’ Conference acted on its own initiative to provide guidelines, allowing pastors to hold “private ceremonies†to bless the “unions†of same-sex couples who had already registered “partnership†in accordance with Swedish law.
In December 2001 a very public such “private ceremony†was held in Uppsala Cathedral, “celebrating†the lesbian partnership of Archbishop Hammar’s sister, Anna-Karin Hammar, herself a priestess, with the divorced laywoman and feminist theologian Ninna Edgardh Beckman. (Hammar was present but played no role in the service.) So it came as a surprise to many when a Church Assembly committee assigned the task of reflecting on the issue concluded that “the time is not ripe†for the Church of Sweden to institute formal blessings of same-sex “unions,†although eight of the committee’s twelve members saw no problem in theory with such “blessings.â€
Having observed the SEC and served as Priest there, it is unclear to me what the benefit of state church status is, if the Kirk is any exemplar. You can be more publicly and nationally wrong, I suppose.
But I also agree that just dis-establishing cannot mean a straightforward solution to anything. The SEC in Fife was and is tiny, often referred to as ‘The English Church’ by locals. But the Kirk is also struggling to remain vibrant. Having no serious theological education system cannot help the SEC, as the training is now all pretty much in-house. But in so many other ways it is simply too difficult to compare the anglican and episcopal realities in Scotland and in England, in terms of establishment. I agree with PM that the situation in the C of E needs remedy from some quarter other than disestablishment — unless of course things simply become intolerable. I think republicans will always struggle to see the merits in establishment.
If its any consolation, the Anglican Church in Australia has never been established. We are no more liberal than CofE and USA (that is, the leaders are very liberal except for a few significant pockets!) and republicans here spend most of their time drowning their sorrows.
I am not necessarily advocating for or against disestablishment. But if Rowan Williams keeps going as he is, the result is likely to be de facto disestablishment anyway. The shortsightedness of the English ecclesiastical establishment is truly a wonder to behold.
PM – my sympathies have always been with the Monarchy (I am originally Canadian), however, I have also believed that if the monarchy is not tethered to basic Christianity (i.e. if the monarch does not derive their sovereignty from the one true God) then the foundation of the monarchy is lost and the republican form of government is the better option.
It seems to me in Britain today, that the government is hell-bent on implementing an anti-Christian, secularist, soft-authoritarianism and has no qualms about using the CofE to push that agenda. Thus Rowan Williams becomes not just the debacle of the CofE, but is actually the tool of the British government. In other words, how does the agenda that Rowan Williams is pushing differ from the agenda that the current and most recent British governments have been pushing?
I realize that disestablishment is no panacea, nor is it anything ideal. My question is simply this – if it is true that Britain’s anti-Christian government wishes to manipulate the CofE in order to achieve its anti-Christian agenda, then it seems to me that it is only a matter of basic survival for the CofE to insulate itself from that toxic manipulation, and the only way it can so insulate itself is via dis-establishment.