Established facts
Theo Hobson 12:38pm
On the Moral Maze they were discussing the place of religion in society again. What struck me was that none of the Christian participants was willing to defend the establishment of the Church of England. The Catholic commentator Clifford Longley was for disestablishment, and Rev George Pitcher of the Telegraph supposed that he was too. The Evangelical vicar Steve Chalke didn't quite face the issue, but kept insisting that the churches must reject any form of privilege in order to serve society. It was left to Melanie Phillips and Michael Portillo to suggest that the established church might be a good thing.
The establishment of the C of E is still just about defensible in secular conservative terms: it's a force for stability, a source of national identity, a brake on religious extremism, et cetera. But people who care about the public image of Christianity are warier. They sense that the aura of privilege makes a Christian perspective less credible. Why should one denomination of one faith be allowed a degree of power, or at least prestige, that its popularity on the ground does not merit?
The next day the Guardian reported that the government plans to reform that thorny little corner of the constitution called the Act of Settlement. Chris Bryant MP is the brave champion of rights for royal Catholics. Oh dear. What a muddle. He wants a Catholic monarch to have the right to be the supreme governor of the Church of England.
While the Church of England is the established Church, of which the monarch is the supreme governor, it is obvious that the monarch ought to be of this faith. If you don't like the smell of this, fine, you're for disestablishment. There's no point in tinkering around, creating new absurdities. It amuses me to see how muddled Tory Catholics get over this issue. They greatly fear that disestablishemnt would weaken
the monarchy and the nation's Christian character, so they hotly defend the privileged position of a church they don't believe in. Of course they want their church to be established – but for the time being the Anglican imitation is better than nothing.
Instead of tinkering with the Act of Settlement we need to look at the meaning behind it. Its purpose was to tie the monarchy and the established church to liberal Protestantism. It helped to ensure that Britain held a comparatively liberal course: the Catholicism of the Continent was kept at bay. The question now is: how do we adapt our constitution so as to renew this commitment to liberalism?
***
A quick word on the American 'purity' movement, that encourages pre-marital virginity. A few weeks ago the vile Russell Brand sneered at a pop-group that espouses its aims, and the other week there was a , predictably sneery Channel 4 documentary on the movement. An American girl of about eleven told a female interviewer that her first kiss would be on her wedding day. 'But what if you don't like the way your husband kisses?' the interviewer asked her. Many of us seem to react with anger when the doctrine of sexual liberation is questioned, as if such dissent is threatening. In the States they at least admit that there are two sides to the issue, that there's a debate to be had: we just pile on mocking peer-pressure if anyone dares to step out of line.
Previous
Tim Hedges
October 4th, 2008 1:58pm Report this commentWhat few people seem to mention is that it is in the interests of te CofE to disestablish itself. It cannot be a crusading venture with all this baggage of being the state religious vehicle. In my view establishment has been kept on by the State in order to keep the Church in line. Bishops need to get out of the House of Lords and on to the streets.
Doug
October 4th, 2008 3:00pm Report this commentI'm an atheist but I see great value in the established church. It does provide stability and stop extremism - not convinced about national identity at least in the Union because there are different religious traditions across the UK. It's paradoxical to allow a Catholic to become the head of the CoE however discriminatory it may be at first glance.
As for the comments about the purity movement - I find such criticism of 'sneered' or piling on' or 'mocking' laughable quite frankly. There are plenty of examples of the same behaviour from the right. And that is despite the fact that I may agree with the underlying POV. My problem with some in the purity movement is their desire to enforce their POV through legislation.
mouse
October 4th, 2008 4:45pm Report this commentSexual liberation must be a good thing, because it's made everybody much happier and fulfilled in their relationships. Hasn't it?
Moxon
October 4th, 2008 8:36pm Report this commentWhat struck me about that programme was that most of the participants seemed constitutionally unable to distinguish between a religious point of view that had implications for public policy, and the establishment of some religion or other. Do religious commentators, pro or con religion, not bother to think discriminatingly, or even to have the least idea of history? The level of debate is very poor.
Tuppy
October 5th, 2008 3:26am Report this commentLiberalism enshrined at the heart of our national religion and constitution? I don't think liberal protestantism was that which animated those who opposed Roman Catholicism and E/established our church on the present lines; they didn't want greater ability to be wrong and divided and personal, but wanted to guarantee and protect a pure Biblical faith, and a faithful, peaceful nation.
That nation is now faithless, and so the constitution and the church, as they have organised it, are being tested to the extremes, along with the peace of the nation. It might not survive this terrible era. But it would be well to remember what it was for; it will only definitely survive if that old faith returns, and so the old boundaries make sense, and obtain upon their merits. At present we have remarkably dreadful and widespread liberalism, and the idea that somehow making everything even more tolerant and confused, and debasing the last few remaining standards, will help at all is amusing, if not devilish.
The Laughing Cavalier
October 5th, 2008 9:29am Report this commentThe law as presently constituted allows a Moslem, a Jew, a Sikh or a Hindu, in fact any religion or none, other than Catholic to become Monarch and thus head of the Established Church. How is that less absurd than a Catholic in the same position?
casaubon
October 6th, 2008 9:01am Report this commentI am an active member of the Church of England, in my 30's and with a young family. My local parish church, in a suburb of a market town in England, is made up of many such ordinary people (we have about 40 children under 14 who attend my particular service - obviously with parents or carers). If you asked them if they thought the Church of England should be disestablished most would say 'yes'. Why?
Mainly because their focus is upon local ministry - we run parent and toddler groups, debt advice, a coffee shop, meals for the senior citizens, 'holiday at home' for those too infirm (and normally too poor) to get away. We have about 1000 people who will pass through our building on an average week, and it is a pleasure to serve them.
We have also paid for a school in a village in the developing world, support relief workers in 6 countries and jointly finance a homeless shelter in the town.
However, what was once a benefit to all of this activity - the established presence and the innate respect of the vicar, has disappeared. We get more done without the established influence than with it - and in my travels as someone who visits many churches in a professional capacity this is mirrored in every town and city I visit.
The C of E isn't there as some benign influence to be patronzingly kept-on, it is a living, breathing group of people who put there money where their beliefs are and pay for the workings of the institution.
(By the way - Steve Chalke isn't an 'evanglical vicar' - he is a baptist minister who isn't even a part of the established church. A fairly fundamental error in the article.
Tuppy
October 6th, 2008 4:45pm Report this commentIt is the establishment of the church which gives it such a presence, and easy entrance, in every community.
Back to top