Don’t take state favour for granted Church of England
I rather pertinent article from the Church Times this morning:-
Don’t take state favour for granted
by Bill Bowder
IF the Church of England does not change its relationship with the state, it could find itself suddenly under threat from a future court decision on religious equality in Europe, constitutional experts were warned this week.
Bob Morris, the editor and main author of a new work, Church and State in 21st-century Britain (Books, 5 June), suggested that the Church might lose control of its destiny, speaking in a debate at the Constitution Unit of University College, London, on Monday. Experts and members of the public questioned the continued place of the established Church in England.
The Church should take the initiative to change its relationship with the state if it did not want to find itself the victim of events outside its control, Mr Morris said. It should not take for granted the continued support of other religions for establishment. Opponents were growing more confident.
There had been “more toleration by others of the Church of England than toleration of others by it”, Mr Morris suggested. A future decision about religious equality in the UK or European courts, however, could have a “sudden impact” on the Church.
“It is better to change ahead than to be forced to change,” he said although the current situation suited those church leaders who did not believe it was up to them to act. They were, however, acquiescing in a system of “pragmatic hypocrisy”.
Others in the debate, held under Chatham House rule to ensure anonymity, said that the Church was fighting a rearguard action to protect establishment. The issue of equal treatment of all religions and denominations before the law “has not gone cold”.
Establishment was defended as ensuring that the Church could protect the place of God “in the public square”. Fears were expressed that a secular society would “ban” God, but opponents of such views countered that these arguments were “highly intelligent obfuscation”: secular constitutions such as that in the United States found plenty of space for religion.
The appeal to 17th-century precedents by supporters of the status quo revealed the Church’s inherent conservatism, they were told. Arguments from tradition “have no general currency”. The Church was accused of believing: “We don’t have an ecclesiology if we don’t have an Establishment.”
Britain remained “a religious monarchy”, not, pace Hazel Blears in a recent interview quoted at the meeting, a secular democracy. It would not be “the end of the world” if that were altered, but it would usher in many changes. Bishops could find themselves having to stand for election in a fully elected House of Lords; the royal coat of arms with the motto “Dieu et mon droit” could be removed from above the doors of courts and Crown buildings; “God save the Queen” would have to be rewritten; prayers at the start of the parliamentary day would cease; and even the Remembrance Day service at the cenotaph would end. The monarch could act more as a patron to the Church than its supreme governor.
William Fittall, secretary general of the Archbishops’ Council, responded to Mr Morris and to questions from the floor in the debate.
Tags: Christian Life, Christianity, Church Life, Politics