This coronation season, punditry is bristling with acute reflections on the British constitution, especially its religious aspect. Or maybe not. There is more comment on Succession (an American TV show that half-satirises, three-quarters worships capitalist excess). But is it not at least a little bit interesting that we officially remain a Protestant theocracy?
The Protestantism of the coronation oath is widely seen as an embarrassing relic from a more sectarian age. The King will promise to defend Protestantism, and protect the Church of England. He won’t say anything unfriendly about Catholicism, but those in the know will know that the Act of Settlement of 1701 remains in place, excluding Catholics from the throne.
What are we meant to think about this? Secular folk are unlikely to focus on it: it’s just another aspect of the monarchy’s antique absurdity, and religion’s just a load of old cobblers so who cares about the specifics? Roman Catholics have an interesting dilemma. They tend to be keen on the monarchy, and its Christian aspect, but they are understandably less keen on this aspect of it.
The average bishop seems unable or unwilling to explain the role of the Church in the development of Britain’s liberal culture
In her recent book on the monarchy and religion, Catherine Pepinster is very cagey on the subject, not even mentioning her own affiliation. In order to sound modern and critical, she implies that it is time to get rid of the anti-Catholic elements. But when it comes to the crunch she cites Charles Moore’s opinion that cutting the tie with Protestantism might lead to disestablishment, which would be a shame, and she seems to agree. British Catholics seem to prefer a Protestant establishment to the prospect of a secular state. Does this make theological sense? I’d like to hear their thoughts.
I suppose what Catholics would like is for the monarchy’s religious identity to be widened, so that the link is with Christianity rather than the Church of England or Protestantism. In theory that could be effected by the repeal of the Act of Settlement and the rewording of the coronation oath. But such reform would underline the scandal, in the eyes of secular liberals, that the monarchy officially affirms just one religion. Ironically, the Protestant particularism makes the monarchy’s link with religion less offensive, because it seems an accidental inheritance from a previous age.
What about Anglicans? Do they defend the tradition? It’s hard to say: no one seems to want to talk about it. If the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has recently addressed the issue, it has passed me by. In fact, I haven’t noticed any Anglican pondering the issue in recent months, even in the Church Times.
Why such evasion? It’s not enough to give a sheepish shrug and say, ‘We seem to be involved in the dignified part to the constitution, what can you do?’ Anglicans should have the balls to say: this is our tradition, this is how we defend it.
Here’s my view of the matter. Britain’s liberal tradition developed in a rather unique way. We had a revolution, of sorts, before it was fashionable. This revolution was rather complicated. Through regicide, republic, restoration, and then a new constitution, we emerged as the pioneer liberal state. We made a break with absolutism, we introduced an element of religious freedom, from which later freedoms developed. But here’s the complication: this embryonic form of political liberty took the form of an established religion, headed by a Protestant monarch. This was the only way to keep Catholicism, with its gravitation to political absolutism, at bay.
All very interesting, you might say, but that tradition has been supplanted by secular liberalism, throughout the western world. Well, in our case, it hasn’t. It literally hasn’t. Our version of liberalism is rooted in Protestant establishment, and the roots have never been cut. Which is why the coronation is more than empty flummery: it expresses the actual constitution that we have.
In my youth this embarrassed me profoundly, that my religion was tied up with this antiquated form of politics. It discredits the Church of England, I felt, and makes it look illiberal. An established religion is a form of theocracy, and only places like Iran have theocracies, I used to say, so even if our establishment has become pretty harmless and liberal, it causes confusion. Let’s get rid of the muddle. But I gradually thought again.
What I realised is that the embarrassment and muddle is worth it, for our peculiar history has given rise to a special form of Christianity. Over the last two centuries, the Church of England consented to the expansion of political liberalism, and the hollowing out of its established status. It became the established Church of a liberal state. To some, it is therefore laughably weak, spineless – it affirms liberal culture in a way that a real Church does not. But I, as a liberal Christian, am in favour of such a Church.
I know it’s complicated, but you’d have thought the Church of England could make a bit more effort to communicate this stuff, to encourage reflection about the role of religion in our constitution. The subject is left to pompous high Tories, salivating over orbs and ointments. The average bishop seems unable or unwilling to explain the role of the Church in the development of Britain’s liberal culture. That had better change, if this coronation is not to be the last.
Comments