A Disestablished Church is not part of a truly liberal society, the British MP Sir Alan Beith has said.
Speaking at the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum’s inaugural Gladstone Lecture, Sir Alan told members of the Liberal Democrat party that “disestablishment is not a necessary feature of a diverse and multi-cultural society.”
He said: “I know of no evidence that significant numbers of Muslims, Jews, Hindus or Sikhs are at all interested in getting the Church of England disestablished, and it is no longer a popular view with nonconformists or Catholics as it was a century ago.”
The lecture seems to miss the point. Surely the question is, Would it be better for the Church of England if it were disestablished? Would it be set free not only in narrow legal terms, but also in the eyes of the population, to preach the gospel in a way that it cannot do now? It seems to me that there are good grounds for arguing that the Church of England would be much better off. It would be less identified with the social and political powers, the well-to-do and the comfortable, because it would no longer be an arm of the state. If you think that latter description is excessive, consider the presence of bishops in the House of Lords: they are legislators for the nation. Consider, too, that Church of England doctrine is subject to national law. I remember a debate in General Synod where there was doubt expressed whether a vicar or rector could refuse to marry a couple who, free to marry, come to him and ask him to do so. The problem was, apparently, the way the church law was enshrined in statute law. The evidence is that state churches bleed to death because they have to be all things to all men (pace St Paul). The Church in Wales seems to me to be thriving because it was set free 85 years ago.
Although we in the UK are now overwhelmingly middle class, questions of class continue, I believe, to plague us. There are infinite gradations of class in England today. I am Catholic but I hugely respect the Church of England’s work in many different social settings; yet I believe that it would be able to do much better without the class associations that come from establishment.
Terry Tee
Just looking at it from the other end of the telescope is it possible that the state would be the poorer without association with the Church of England? Some of us still think there is merit in being a Christian country, in having a national church which leads in public events, national services and which has a place where it can be listened to in Parliament. Removal of our church from national life will probably reduce the Christian witness in public affairs.
Wales – well I’m no expert but understand that they have found life after disestablishment difficult, the first problem being the property they lost.
as someone who generally favours everything about tradition, so i do in this case. also, i have found that there is plenty of class warfare to be found here in America, it is not confined to England.
A rather late reply. I am always astonished at comments like no 2 above, especially from someone who reads a US-based blog. Would you say that even given the separation of church and state in the US, there is no Christian witness in national life? At national events and great commemorations? In many ways Christian presence in US public life feels much stronger than in the UK. The trouble with an established church is that it gives a veneer of respectability without actually challenging the powers that be. Consider, if you like (to give some random examples) (a) RC bishops in the US and their strong stand on abortion; (b) Billy Graham’s influence over the decades in the White House; (c) the role of the churches and synagogues in New York after 9/11 leading public mourning (and tempering public cries for revenge); (d) the role of the National (Episcopal) Cathedral in Washington DC in providing a venue for big state ceremonies; (e) the presence of military chaplains of all faiths in the US military. Who needs a state church?,/b>
Or, to give the correct formatting of the emphasis I wanted for the last sentence:
Who needs a state church?
#5 Thanks for your response Terry Tee
As for the US I am probably not best placed to opine, but I have noticed a couple of things:
[a] There is in places probably a much stronger Christian presence both in percentage of population who are Christians and in political involvement than in the UK; although it is difficult because a great many people who are rarely seen in church list themselves as belonging to a Christian denomination in the UK.
(b) In the US I have read about a number of cases where use of Christian symbolism in public buildings, schools, public spaces or Christian prayers is attacked in a way we do not see in the UK.
[c] The RC bishops both in the UK and US fearlessly and clearly put forward the Christian viewpoint in a way that we do not always do;
[d] I certainly watched the televised Memorial Service for President Ford from the National Cathedral but am not sure to what extent this was because he was Episcopalian. I am not sure to what extent if at all Episcopalianism has the same place at the heart of national events and commemorations that that Church of England has in England; and
[e] I am always very impressed to see the Christian witness and mission to the US armed forces both in terms of ministry and pastoral support. There are of course official chaplains’ corps to all three armed services in the UK.
I am just suggesting that we take a very careful look before disestablishing the CofE. We have a wonderful opportunity waiting for mission and public exposure . Perhaps we have not made the best use of the blessings which have been heaped upon us.
I am not sure either of us have got the formatting sorted
I would also add that in the US there does seem to have been a bit of an unfortunate backlash to the perceived influence of Christians in US political life.