The Humanist and Secularist Liberal Democrats held a very interesting fringe meeting at the Spring Conference, entitled “Is it time to disestablish the Church of England?”
I was very pleased to hear from Simon Barrow from the website Ekklesia, which has always struck me as a very progressive-thinking website, with its “roots in Christians social thought” but “vital” partnerships with people of other convictions (both non-religious and religious).
Simon is remarkably knowledgeable and thoughtful on the subject of the disestablishment of the Church of England. He says he is an “Anglican” like myself, but nonetheless argues for disestablishment both on grounds of fairness and theology (as I also do).
Helpfully, Simon wrote an article, published just after the fringe meeting, in which he explored some of the points which came up in the discussion. It’s called “Disestablishment and the ‘common wealth’ spirit”.
One of the points I wanted to highlight from Simon’s piece is where he specifies exactly what disestablishment is and is not:
At the outset, it is important to be absolutely clear what Establishment is and what it isn’t. The term has a very specific reference. It means that the Church of England is subject to the Crown and given a certain position in relation to the state by the Crown, in law. Other privileges – such as retaining bishops in the House of Lords, the expansion of Church schools which are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion or belief in selection and employment (something which Ekklesia has opposed), and the claim of certain Church leaders to be “speaking on behalf of the nation” may be argued to flow from Establishment, but they are not Establishment itself. The mechanism of Establishment, by which just one Church from just one nation claims an official place in the parliamentary and legal framework of the UK, is in that sense a technical matter – but, as such, it is perhaps best thought of as a key, opening the door to other advantages and giving the Church of England a privileged place overall.
Simon later chimes in very strongly with my own view as a Christian, member of of the Church of England since September 13th 1959 (when I was baptised aged five weeks old) and proud Liberal Democrat:
Speaking from a dissenting Christian viewpoint, the kind of earthly power, privilege and wealth embodied in Established status seems to me to stand in direct contradiction to the life and being of Jesus – who proclaimed and enacted good news to the poor, whose mother sang joyfully of the mighty being tumbled from their thrones, whose death was engineered by an fatal alliance of interests in state and religion, and whose earliest followers were seen as directly subversive of Empire, militarism, domination and the ethics of Caesar.
In other words, from where I stand, the whole culture and status of Establishment (including the confused and dangerous notion of preserving a ‘Christian nation’, which often accompanies it) is inimical to the levelling dynamic of a Gospel which is based on the power of love overturning the love of power.
You can read Simon’s full article here.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Ed Davey calls for Mark Carney to pay official visit before Trump
Finding your moral compass
Live in the sky with Liverpool Labour's pie in the sky housing policy
Cheney Payne re-selected for Cambridge
Electoral register update
Unions and campaigners opposing ban on Palestine Action
Sent to Bridges
Tim Rogers
David Le Grice
Tristan Ward
Jack Meredith
28 Comments
Paul,
my knowledge of this subject does not extend much beyond schoolboy days when we learnt that antidisestablishmentarianism was the longest word in the English language, if you do not count technical terms.
However, the UK being the only country, other than Iran, in which religious leaders have an automatic right to sit is not a good look for a modern democracy.
I recognise the useful contribution the Bishops make to public debate, but don’t see any real need for that to come from within the House of Lords.
There is a good argument for convening a constitutional convention to address the issues raised by William Wallace last week together with the role of the Church of England in state affairs.
So where do you stand on this, Paul ? The position of the monarch role is acknowledged in the preface to the Thirty-Nine Articles of 156 :.
“Being by God’s Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace … We have therefore, upon mature Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following, That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England”.
LLG got it sorted in Wales, and the Scots had a good go at it in 1843.
Sorry David I thought I made it clear in the article. I want to see the Church of England dis-established (which I am supposing would remove the monarch from having the automatic position of Supreme Governor) and, additionally, if Bishops want to sit in the House of Lords they can stand for election IMHO. It is utterly ridiculous and iniquitous that bishops from one denomination of one religion from one nation out of four have an automatic right to speak and vote on UK legislation.
Thanks for the clarification, Paul.
Disestablishment would also mean that the Church of England could choose its own bishops instead of having the choice of the Prime Minister of the day imposed on them. While Gordon Brown was first to commit to offering the name of the first-named recommendation of the Crown Nominations Commission to the Queen, this is not binding on future Prime Ministers and, in the past, Prime Ministers have interfered (e.g. Thatcher refused to let Jim Thompson’s name go forward as Bishop of Birmingham).
My fear is that the CofE as a source of spiritual leadership is too irrelevant to too many people for them to bother about the details of Establishment. (That isn’t to say I think it is irrelevant, it’s just it’s seen as a sort of odd ornament the upper classes have in the garden).
Cameron very much gave this impression — I can believe what I want, but I want to believe it from the position of an occasional attender at a rural Victorian parish church, because it makes for nice photoshoots and good schools.
This is the sort of lazy Toryism Gladstone abhorred, and led him in later life (as a sincere and ridiculously conservative Anglican) to believe disestablishment (whilst he would have regretted it in England) could be a right and reasonable thing to do.
If local people, on a devolved basis, want their local government to do charitable and social care business etc with and through churches, that’s fine, and there should be no restriction on that as long as there is a rationale and a democratic sanction, and the humanists can splutter all they want. But there is no justification for a national church when religious communities are of their nature embedded locally.
Think CofE is one of those things that is comfortable because it is there. Something are best left alone
I agree with the idea; but, like the abolition of the monarchy and the introduction of PR (I was going to add “the election of a Lib Dem government” but thought better of it), it won’t happen. And… wonder of wonders, Mr Bourke made a joke (well, sort of).😀
As an proud Anglican a few years ago I would have agreed with DE. But with this appalling government I think the Anglican church with its Liberal values is a useful opposition (all be it a fairly small one) in the heart of the establishment.
Maybe Sweden offers a way forward
https://sweden.se/society/10-fundamentals-of-religion-in-sweden/
Anglican Church – Liberal Values? Words which shouldn’t appear in the same sentance.
Thanks, Paul, for picking up the issue of Disestablishment, from a Christian perspective.
When I was organising our Disestablishment event, I wanted to ensure that the very strong support of many liberal Christians (perhaps most?) for disestablishment and removal of the bishops’ reserved places was well represented, and Simon Barrow made a powerful case. The recording should be released shortly on our Humanist and Secularist Liberal Democrats youtube channel.
@James Young: quite apart from questioning the liberalism of the Church of England, for example in relation to same-sex relationships, the bishops in the Lords are a symptom of an archaic and undemocratic chamber of government that needs wholesale reform.
“Anglican Church”? What about “Anglican Water”? Have you seen their bills? Oops, sorry, dyslexia rules again, or is it that I need some new specs? 😀
Seriously though, if a Catholic country like France can espouse secularism, why not us? We’ve surely long ago paid off our debt to Henry VIII!
There is also the question of whether Establishment places constraints on the Church of England.
On 31st March 1406, Owain Glyndwr wrote his “Pennal Letter” to Charles V calling for the independence of the Church in Wales from Canterbury. A mere 514 years later on 31st March 1920 the Welsh Church Act 1914 was implemented so that the establishment of the Church of England in Wales was terminated. Political reform takes decades but religious reforms take centuries.
Religious beliefs like other beliefs are subjective and arguing that one is superior to another is self defeating. Knowing that there is something beyond these beliefs or spirituality is objective though cannot be proven. It is time the UK embraced this uncertainty and treated all religions that pursue positive aims at their core equally and disestablish the COE.
@Peter Hirst
“…and treated all religions that pursue positive aims at their core equally…”
So who gets to decide whether ‘aims’ are positive? For example, a religious group may believe that supporting the institution of marriage, as traditionally defined, is a key aim of their mission. Would that be viewed as a ‘positive aim’ or condemned as ‘homophobic’?
@ Gwyn Williams “Political reform takes decades but religious reforms take centuries”.
That’ll be a great relief to John Marriott because it might…. just might….. be done by a Liberal Democrat Government. Unfortunately by then we’ll both be indisposed and unable to witness it.
Toby, one doesn’t have to be a liberal Christian to oppose disestablishment. Conservatism of personal belief is not inherently linked to conservatism with regards institutions and society, and much of the ‘liberal’ consensus was originally shaped by people with very conservative beliefs. It is a shame I keep having to state this.
I’m sorry I missed the fringe, but I couldn’t agree more with Paul and Simon Barrow. I imagine most Lib Dem Anglicans, like me, oppose the establishment of the Church of England.
And yes, Kay Kirkham, Anglican Church and Liberal Values can coexist and they do in many churches around the country. As usual, the values at grassroots level are rather more open-minded than the formal position on things might suggest (worth looking at Inclusive Church – https://www.inclusive-church.org/ – as an example).
David Lloyd George said he “could not fit it into the budget”. He also accepted a peerage from his friend Winston S Churchill.
I suppose Establishmentarianism is yet another outcome of the Tudor Brexit syndrome !!
I agree with Mary Reid on the question of Anglicanism and liberal values. Over the years I’ve known a number of Anglican clergy (including the occasional Bishop), and apart from one Evangelical, they all had progressive thoughtful liberal values – and were unafraid to express them.
In the past there’s been Archbishop William Temple, Woodbine Willie, (Geoffrey Studdert-Kennedy) and Theodore Bayley Hardy VC DSO MC. Today there’s dear old Rev Richard Coles. As an agnostic with Quaker tendencies and a liking for Wesleyan hymns, I respect them all.
Sorry, but, I can’t agree with Kay Kirkham and I’m afraid her comment lacks the liberal values she espouses.
You can now see our Disestablishment event for yourself, complete with Simon Barrow’s contributions, at https://youtu.be/ig5b0DfxzJw.
Thanks to LDHQ for enabling this.
I enjoyed Paul’s article – there was a piece in yesterday’s Telegraph by Catherine Pepinster raising similar concerns. However, my main interest in the issue at present concerns the Climate Crisis.
A new group was launched by the Dalai Lama and Greta Thunberg [feedbackloopsclimate.com] in mid January, on the matter of feedback loops which are outside any particular nation’s dominion and impact, amongst other things, on the capacity of trees and plants to absorb CO2, or even to survive, as global temperatures rise.
The Dalai Lama has a huge following built up over 60 years of constant global travelling since he escaped Tibet in 1959 and established a shadow Tibetan government based at Dharmsala.
My concern with an established COE is that the government is likely to dismiss any Climate Crisis action led by a renown Buddhist – even though it appears his group has more chance of success than others since it is able to apply pressure on the governments of all significant nations – because of the Dalai Lama’s millions of followers.
COP21 occurs latter this year and given the growing acceptance that the Climate Crisis must be confronted now – pressing for this aspect of the crisis to be given the utmost attention – might create the circumstances for all of the other important issues relating to the disestablishment the COE to be addressed.
Has Paul considered the question of the Monarch being Head of the Church, and, whether an hereditary monarchy can be reconciled with liberal values ?
David
Can I be clear so as to stop your drip feed comments where you seem to wake up in the middle of the night suddenly thinking of another reason why you think I might not be a true Liberal because I am a faithful member of the Church of England?
I am in favour of the Church of England being dis-established – which means removing the monarch as the head of the church.
I am also a Republican and have been for decades, indeed I have been a member of the Republic pressure group for many years.
https://www.republic.org.uk/
I am also a key follower of Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s thinking on the subject of LGBTQ+ rights and utterly reject the church’s equivocal and sometimes condemnatory attitude to LGBTQ+ rights. Indeed, I have been a member of LGBT+ Liberal Democrats for several years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23464694
https://theconversation.com/desmond-tutus-long-history-of-fighting-for-lesbian-and-gay-rights-131598
Has that covered everything, David?
It might be worth anyone supportive of disestablishing the COE watching the story of Faberge [Eggs] which was shown on the BBC last night – if they haven’t already. [originally shown in January 2013]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0336tf3/the-worlds-most-beautiful-eggs-the-genius-of-carl-faberge
Whereas there is little doubt that the removal of the monarch as head of the COE is rational and should, theoretically, improve the sanctity of the faith both in the UK and worldwide. However, the removal of this role from the head of state can have unforeseen consequences.
Once great power and wealth are removed from one individual or group – even by peaceful revolution – this wealth and power has to move elsewhere. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the new owners of this will not use it in a far more repressive manner than the previous owners.
John Roffey: It happens all the time, not just in politics but in business and public service.