My answer would be “No”, but I think it’s time to have the debate.
Prince Charles intends to be the “Defender of Faith” when he becomes King, rather than the “Defender of the Faith”. David Cameron wants to change the law to allow Catholics to sit on the throne. It is likely that House of Lords reform will either remove or dilute the bishops’ privileged place in the legislature.
All of those ideas have their pros and cons. But all would undeniably weaken the position of the established Church.
Having a monarch as “Defender of Faith” would be a small change, but one that would send a clear message: that the Church of England is no longer as central to the monarchy as it has been in the past (and, therefore, that it is no longer as central to England).
Allowing Catholics to become King or Queen would also erode the position of the Church. It isn’t likely to happen any time soon, of course, but changing the law would indicate one of two things: that the government doesn’t oppose the idea of a non-Anglican being Head of the Church (a bizarre position), or that the government is ambivalent about the traditional link between being Head of State and Head of the Church of England. Either way, it cannot be construed as an endorsement of the Church’s current position.
Removing the bishops from the House of Lords would tangibly decrease both the influence and stature of the Church, while retaining them alongside representatives of other religious groups would eliminate their unique position under the current constitutional settlement.
If all of those things happen, we risk disestablishing the Church by the back door: slowly eroding its position until actual disestablishment is just a formality.
I believe that the Church is worth more than that. Instead of chipping away at its position bit by bit, let’s have a full and open debate.
Does the Conservative Party support the establishment of the Church? How about the Liberal Democrats? If establishment is supported, what should it look like? Should the status quo be preserved, or should modern establishment mean something different? Can establishment exist simultaneously with recognition of other faiths? If so, how?
They are not simple questions, but it isn’t a simple topic. The relationship between religion, the state and society is increasingly complex – both as attitudes to religion change, and as England becomes more multicultural.
Having this debate now, at a time when the coalition is undertaking widespread constitutional reform, will allow us to determine the future of the Church. It seems like established religion has been on the retreat for a long time: changing the succession rules and Lords reform provide us with an opportunity to discuss it, rather than turning a blind eye and letting it whither away.
Should we retain the established Church as it is? Should the current settlement be modified to better reflect modern England? Or should we just do away with it altogether?
Over to you…
“@PlatformTen: @MrTHomasHaynes asks if it’s time to disestablish the Church of England? http://t.co/Po65hJD #fb” Really interesting blog
My first @PlatformTen blogpost: Is it time to disestablish the Church of England? http://t.co/IwNfRM5
@His_Grace I’ve done a blogpost on the CofE and establishment that might be of some interest to you http://t.co/y4CboCO
@TimMontgomerie I’ve written a post about whether it’s time to disestablish the CofE? Thought you might be interested http://t.co/y4CboCO
One of the supreme ironies about the established Church is that England has become one of the most secular countries in the western world despite being one of the last to retain a fully established church. It could well be argued that establishment is, in fact, one of the causes of the Church of England’s decline. C of E Bishops seem happy to rubbish large parts of their belief system, whilst retaining the comfortable worldy bits, like seats on the House of Lords, which make their daily lives more pleasant which is a classic case of having your cake (or host?) and eating it. In the USA where establishment is forbidden by the constitution religion generally and christianity in particular plays a vigorous and largely positive role in daily life, arguably because of the competition which exists where there is no establishment. In England the gradual dilution of the C of E has led to a large scale movement to the Roman Catholic church which for all its acknowledged faults does at least maintain an unapologetic creed and belief system and rigorously promotes spirituality giving comfort to the vast majority of it’s congregants. In my view the C of E is artificially maintained by establishment and would crumble away without it. Thus from a principled view disestablishment is logical and necessary. From a pragmatic viewpoint however the church provides some benefit in terms of pagentary and a somewhat fractured moral viewpoint and disestablishment is legally complicated (requiring 13 Acts of parliament I understand) and really as Conservatives there are far more important things to worry about, so I am sure that, quite correctly, it is unlikely to feature in a Conservative manifesto anytime soon.
I wonder if any work has been done on Prince Charles’ idea of being “Defender of Faith”? Do other faiths want the monarchy to defend them? Do some faiths qualify while others don’t? What will King Charles do in practice to defend faith? If he is serious about adapting the role of the monarchy when it comes to faith then these questions need to be though through, discussed in public and answered.
In regards to your blog I agree that the answer is no, but like all good conservative institutions the CofE relationship with state and vice-versa needs to evolve along with the country.
I don’t want any organisation that believes in 200 year old fairy tales to in any way represent, participate or affect my government. The CoE is increasingly irrelevant to modern society and it, along with other faiths should have no special privileges.
Secularism; freedom of individuals to believe as they will without inflicting them on others should be the goal.
There are some interesting comments coming about my piece on the CofE and establishment. What do people on here think? http://t.co/y4CboCO
Dan Moody is spot on in his reply. I cannot for the life me understand how any intelligent rational huiman being could not see secularism as the best way forward. After all secularsim is a cornerstone of true democracy. How can you have freedom and equality of citizens rights and opportunites if you
limit them by not having freddom and equality of religion.
Surely it’s time to crawl screaming out of the Dark Ages? We need to disestablish the church, and kick the bishops out of the House of Lords. Religion and politics should not be mixed in any way. If you disagree, perhaps you might like to try living in Iran.
Why are we debating the royal/catholic matter? People do not really care about all this Medieval nonsense. Our time would be better spent debating whether or not we really want a monarchy.
When Elizabeth (sadly, I have to say) finally goes, can we please please give serious consideration to not replacing her at all? Especially not with Charles.
We really can get by without bishops and royals, and please don’t spout the old excuse about the effects on tourism if they go. I am pretty sure France hasn’t suffered in that regard, with people flocking to Versailles etc.
I’m with Dan Moody 100%. Well said, Dan.
Do you think we should disestablish the Church of England? http://t.co/y4CboCO
@EpicEgo How about the CofE? I did a post on establishment earlier http://t.co/y4CboCO
We should disestablish now.
The children of Prince William and Kate Middleton should have as much right as, say, Tony Blair to convert to Catholicism or to marry a Catholic.
The Church of England, but not the churches of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, nor Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Pentacostalists or Zoroastrians, have 26 unelected places in the House of Lords. These votes defeated key parts of the government’s Equality Bill only last year, allowing religions to continue to discriminate e.g. on the employment of teachers in faith schools.
And it is positively offensive to millions of Britons to require their children by law to undergo a daily act of Christian worship in schools. Fewer than 2% of Britons attend as much a a weekly CofE service, and falling.
The Bible Society estimates that by 2050 the CofE will have lost 90% of existing congregations, with national weekly attendances of 87,000.
It is preposterous to try to maintain the myth that such a minority sect should enjoy special privileges and preference as, effectively, part of the apparatus of the state.
While I support the idea behind disestablishing the Church, I have a couple of concerns.
Firstly, it could be argued that the fact that the state is formally linked to one religion allows state-schools to educate children about a wide range of religions. In the USA the separation of church and state means that no religion is taught in state-schools, and so children learn only about their parents’ faith, and ignorance often breeds contempt. When I was at secondary school (state comprehensive in South East England) in the 1990′s, the religious education covered most of the world’s major religions and sought to promote tolerance through understanding. Would a secular state feel able to educate children about religion, or would teachers be accused of spending too much time on one religion rather than another?
Secondly, some people really do live their lives with faith influencing every movement. I’m all for shutting organised religion out of politics, but is it possible to remove personal faith? And should we say that faith and politics cannot cohabit happily? I talked about this a bit at http://feminismfortories.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/easter/.
"Is it time to disestablish the Church of England?" http://t.co/Mn9tN50 …interesting article, and interesting comments…
Platform 10 » Blog Archive » Is it time to disestablish the Church of England? http://fb.me/UUT28mRW