Advocates of church disestablishment rarely miss an opportunity to argue for their favoured cause. Many of them believe they have been provided with a glorious one by the recent announcement of the forthcoming civil marriage of Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles in a ceremony that will immediately be followed by prayers and a dedication conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
One such opponent of church establishment quick to seize this opportunity was self-styled Anglican atheist, Theo Hobson. (You go figure!)
In an article of his in last Tuesday’s Times (Feb. 15 2005), entitled, ‘Get Off Your Knees, Dr Williams’, Mr Hobson claimed that, by having publicly expressed its approval of the marriage, despite being unable on doctrinal grounds to conduct the ceremony since the couple are divorcees, the Church of England ‘has opted to become part of the heritage industry ... [and] no longer a convincing or compelling form of Christianity.’
It remains a complete mystery why anyone should suppose, as clearly Mr Hobson does, that the Church of England would become any more convincing or compelling a form of Christianity were it to sever its special connection with the monarchy.
The purpose for which sovereign and church became linked in England was never thereby to enable either party to obtain extra legitimacy or authority through being made to consort with the other. It was, rather, to ensure that every holder of public office in England, above all that of its chief executive or sovereign, should come to look upon their office as a sacrament, and thereby feel constrained to discharge it on behalf of the public good for which it was given them, rather than for mere personal advantage.
Clearly, to accomplish this purpose a political society need not require its citizens to belong to the same, or indeed any Church, nor need it even require this in the case of all who hold public-office. However, it does require that there be some specific form of organised religion that enjoys a uniquely close relation to any royal family in which succession passes through primogeniture. This link is required to ensure that each incumbent sovereign is able to take the necessary vows at their coronation.
Some may protest that this special link between state and church has become an anachronism in an age so secular as ours. To make such protest, however, is to beg all the relevant questions.
So long as the vast majority of the English remain at least acquiescent in the institution of monarchy and show no sign of wishing to disavow at least notional affiliation with the established church, there is no reason why these two time-honoured institutions should not continue to retain their close historic symbiotic relation.
Rather than it being the Church of England or the Prince of Wales who needs to think twice about their continued place in the political scheme of things, it should be those, like Hobson, who should reconsider what England stands to lose were its historic religion to withdraw from the public square.
It is not only suicide bombers for whom religion can offer sufficient consolation to provide them with the motivational wherewithal to make acts of supreme self-sacrifice. We should remember this, not least when bidding farewell to troops off to battle, as well as when each incumbent sovereign takes their coronation vows.
Comments (6)
"Whatever kind of God there might be?"
There are some things in Christianity (Anglicanism, last I checked, being included) that were not open to a "whatever," let alone a "might." I could be wrong on this, although I'm sure a good latitudinarian would only wish me luck in living out my error.
Posted by Blimpish | February 22, 2005 12:11 AM
Posted on February 22, 2005 00:11
Dear Prof.Conway, I know you are of Welsh origin but would tyou please write in the Queen's English.
Posted by David Morris | February 21, 2005 12:41 PM
Posted on February 21, 2005 12:41
I am grateful to blimpish for his comments. In response: I am happy to be accused of endorsing latitudinarianism in the Church of England. The church was always at its strongest when it was latitudinarian, and always at its weakest when it sought to present "binding moral authority beyond party and section". If blimpish thinks that the question of God's nature and identity has been "settled, on the whole" he should share his secret with the rest of us and put thousands of philosophers and theologians out of their misery.
Posted by Michael Byrne | February 20, 2005 7:57 PM
Posted on February 20, 2005 19:57
An Anglican who argues that a National Church is idolatrous, and an atheist who claims authority to speak on proper Christian doctrine. Is it a joke, or is he just in need of counselling?
Disestablishment won't be happening any time soon because of the legal complexity involved - one estimate had it at five years' worth of legislation. You can't exactly see many people thanking their Government for doing that (even if they were indifferent to the idea anyway - which I'm not sure is true).
Michael Byrne implicitly endorses exactly the kind of latitudinarian spirit that has led the Church to its current sorry state - "celebrating" a marriage which has its moral complexities (I'm not against, but to pretend it presents no issues is to be blind); talk of "relevance" and "whatever kind of God there might be" (I thought that last one was settled, on the whole?).
At any rate, as we embark on the experiment of the multicultural state, we might in a decade or two be grateful to have retained our ecclesiastical state. We might well find that it has its uses. We might well realise that law benefits by its link to a binding moral authority beyond party and section. The fact that the Church is in such a parlous state should prompt us to do something about it, not surrender to join the mass of rationalist republics.
Posted by Blimpish | February 18, 2005 10:23 PM
Posted on February 18, 2005 22:23
The only interesting question about the CofE is how we (The Nation) should organise preserving many of its beautiful churches for our aesthetic enjoyment as its congregations wither away. To take seriously its role as a Church would surely be frivolous?
Posted by dearieme | February 18, 2005 7:12 PM
Posted on February 18, 2005 19:12
Not convincing, I'm afraid. Theo Hobson's point is valid and his larger case for the disestablishment of the CofE is cogent and convincing. The Church of England's position on the royal marriage is less than inspiring, not because it should be frowning on the marriage but because it should be welcoming it much more warmly than it is and providing very public support for two people making this kind of serious commitment to one another, whatever the complications of their past. The kind of lukewarm behind-the-scenes-sort-of-blessing on offer shows the timidity and lack of imagination in the established church these days. And when the case for maintaining the CofE's privileged role is made on the kind of fabric-of-society basis that David Conway outlines here it inevitably fails to convince. What's ultimately important about the Church of England is its theology and its religious teaching, not (just) about gays and divorcees but about the larger questions of relevance to the human condition and how we can relate to whatever kind of God there might be. The CofE should certainly be disestablished and it should be given a place of honour as primus inter pares among the religions of England but it shouldn't have any continuing institutional role as The Religion Of England, which it so obviously isn't these days.
Posted by Michael Byrne | February 18, 2005 4:31 PM
Posted on February 18, 2005 16:31