Disestablishment: Part III

My initial post re disestablishment of the Church of England was never supposed to become an ongoing theme. Alas, the national press, other bloggers, the Anglican Church and even the Prime Minister appear to conspire in keeping the issue rolling. Yesterday, it was the Prime Minister's interference in the matter which prompted disestablishment: part II. Today, it is the turn of the Anglican Church itself to inadvertently forward the case for disestablishment via this morning's offering from Archbishop Cranmer. It was reported some time ago in The Telegraph:

...the plan to abolish the Act of Settlement was quietly shelved after the Church raised significant objections centring on the British sovereign’s dual role as Supreme Governor.

Church leaders expressed concern that if a future heir to the throne married a Roman Catholic, their children would be required by canon law to be brought up in that faith. This would result in the constitutionally problematic situation whereby the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican.

...A spokesman for the Anglican Church said that although the Act of Succession appeared “anomalous” in the modern world, while the Church of England remained the established religion, the monarch and Supreme Governor could not owe a higher loyalty elsewhere.

He went on: “The prohibition on those in the line of succession marrying Roman Catholics derives from an earlier age and inevitably looks anomalous, not least when there is no prohibition on marriage to those of other faiths or none. But if the prohibition were removed the difficulty would still remain that establishment requires the monarch to join in communion with the Church of England as its Supreme Governor and that is not something that a Roman Catholic would be able to do consistently with the current rules of that church.”

It was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, 'is said to have been persuaded that the difficulties raised by the Anglican Church were insurmountable'.


Indeed, all the above arguments advanced by the Anglican Church are correct and do truly represent a constitutional problem. However, buried within their own statement is the simple answer to the issue. The spokesman for the Anglican Church stated (emphasis mine) 'while the Church of England remained the established religion, the monarch and Supreme Governor could not owe a higher loyalty elsewhere'. From this, the argument is put forth that it would be constitutionally untenable for the Monarch to owe a 'higher loyalty elsewhere' - and indeed it would be!


Yet, as the Anglican Church spokesman helpfully highlights, this state of affairs only exists so long as 'the Church of England remained the established religion'. If the Monarch were not the Supreme Governor of the Church of England the possibility that the head of the Anglican Church could be answerable to a separate sovereign leader could not exist. Therefore, the answer to this constitutional conundrum appears to be simply disestablishing the Church of England. This would mean the Monarch could hold whatever religion they cared for, and marry anyone of whatever religion they cared for, without having a higher loyalty to some other. Indeed, the Monarch would no longer be the head of the established Church for no such Church would exist.


It strikes me that royalists and Anglicans alike are rather missing the obvious answer.

Disestablishment & Discrimination

I happened to write yesterday regarding the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in England. By some happy coincidence, Archbishop Cranmer today picks up the topic of David Cameron's proposal to reform royal succession laws. The Guardian reports:

This rule is a historical anomaly – it does not, for example, bar those who marry spouses of other faiths – and we do not think it can continue to be justified," Cameron wrote. Cameron is also proposing that Catholics should continue to be debarred from being head of state, but that anyone who marries a Catholic should not be debarred. The family would be entitled to bring up their children as Catholics as long as heirs do not seek to take the throne as a Catholic.

 Cranmer correctly notes:

How on earth does this dog's breakfast of a proposal rectify the ‘historical anomaly’? If it be offensive to Roman Catholics that the Monarch may neither be Roman Catholic nor married to one, how does the repeal of half of the prohibition resolve the injustice? If it be bigotry to bar the Monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic, it must a fortiori be bigotry to bar them from the Throne.

 However, he goes on to comment:

Of course it is ‘unfair’ and ‘discriminatory’ that the monarch may not be or marry a Roman Catholic, but the very act of choosing a religion manifestly necessitates discrimination against all the others. It is also ‘discriminatory’ that the Pope may not be Protestant, and even more ‘unfair’ that he may not marry at all. But there are sound theological and historical justifications for the restrictions upon both the King of the Vatican and the Monarch of the United Kingdom, and none of these amount to a violation of their ‘human rights’. Prince William’s heir is perfectly free to marry a Roman Catholic should he (or she) so desire: that it is his (or her) human right. But the Heir is not then free to be King and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But to be King or Queen is not a human right; it is the gift of Parliament.

Cranmer is right to note the inherent discrimination - as existent for the Protestant in respect to the Vatican as the Catholic regarding the British crown - and justified in linking this with the role as head of the established church. However, this rather brings us back to the issue of the established Church of England.


Surely, but for the establishment of the Anglican Church, none of this need be an issue. Neither discrimination against Romans Catholics in respect to the British crown nor the glaring conflict of interest inherent in a communicant of Rome acting as head of the Anglican Church in England would cause any problem were the Anglican Church disestablished. If the Anglican Church placed itself solely under the rule of Christ, as opposed to the Monarch, what should it care if a Catholic succeeds the Throne? For those outside the established Church, it makes little difference who wears the Crown; it will almost certainly not be a representative of their own tradition.


So, I quite agree with Archbishop Cranmer, Cameron's proposal will do nothing to address the issue of discrimination against Roman Catholics succeeding the Throne nor should it whilst such a role incorporates position as head of the Church of England. Nevertheless, were the Anglican Church disestablished in England such discrimination need neither occur nor matter for all parties involved.

Anti/Disestablishmentarianism

Anti/Disestablishmentarianism, aside from being an unnecessarily long word, is an issue that seems to trouble very few. Interest on the matter seems confined to left-wingers with a penchant for constitutional reform, atheists with a particular aversion to anything tinged with religion in public life and the handful of bishops currently nesting in the Lords.


Interestingly, this is an issue with which modern Evangelicalism has had relatively little to say. Of course, there have been the standard calls from dissenting churches for Evangelical Anglicans to flee the nest and the counter-arguments that Anglicanism is a 'good boat to fish from'. However, this has less to do with the establishment of the Anglican church in England and more to do with issues of Evangelical purism e.g. autonomy of the local church and perceived countenance to the edicts of a largely non-Evangelical hierarchy. However, what of the establishment of the church itself?


It is the view of this blogger that the established church should no longer be. That is not to say the Anglican church should no longer be nor a call for Evangelical Anglicans to remove themselves from their denomination; an issue of conscience and preference for those within Anglicanism not a matter of any concern to those outside. Rather, this is an issue of whether any church should be established and hold a special place within Britain (or in this case, England specifically (1)).


David Ceri Jones notes:

After a long and bitter campaign, the Church of England was disestablished in Wales in 1920. Despite the fears of many, that did not prove to be the death knell to Welsh Anglicanism. Rather the Church in Wales, as it very consciously became, redefined itself as the ancient church of the Welsh people, rather than the imposed Anglican establishment it had once been perceived as being. The rapid decline in Welsh nonconformity in the twentieth century has enabled the Church in Wales to become the single largest, and therefore influential, Christian body in Wales. Disestablishment has been positive, even the making of Welsh Anglicanism! 

Thus, disestablishment of the Anglican church in England need not represent the end of English Anglicanism but rather, may see it grow further by setting itself as simply a church under the rule of Christ, as opposed to the rule of the monarch.


In history, the issue of establishment was certainly more pronounced than it is today. As Derek Tidball notes:

The major difference between Evangelical Anglicans and the nonconformists [in the 19th century] lay in their civil and political positions. Civil disabilities were not finally removed from the nonconformists until after the middle of the century and consequently they were much preoccupied with the quest for freedom. Many leading minister were ardent protagonists for disestablishment, which was seen to go hand in hand with political equality. (Who Are the Evangelicals, 1994).

The special place held by the established church, and those therein, marked a point of contention across Evangelicalism. Indeed, Tidball goes on to note 'Dissenting Evangelicals were looked on suspiciously and, in turn, looked suspiciously at Evangelicals in the established church'.


Such civil and political differences between nonconformists and Anglicans have, largely, long since gone. However, in Northern Ireland, the belief that religiously inspired principles, especially in light of the high numbers of Free Presbyterians within the ruling DUP, have influenced government policy very much remains. However, Steve Bruce notes:

It is often assumed that only secular liberals wish to separate church and states, or religion and politics, or morality and state law; that the purpose of recognizing [sic] two distinct spheres is to diminish the power of the church. But the same divisions can be appreciated by those who view the problem from the other end, whose primary concern is to safeguard religion. As the people faced with the dual responsibility of serving the church and their electors, the clergy who were involved in the DUP could appreciate, better than lay Evangelicals, that they had to keep their roles separate (Paisley: Religion and Politics in Northern Ireland, 2009).

Similarly, the American separation of church and state stems from this same conviction. Whilst secular liberals may wish to keep church and state separate to minimise the influence of the Church in matters of State, so too many Evangelicals want the same separation to avoid undue influence of the State in matters of the Church.


So what of the matter of the established church in England? Constitutionally, it seems profoundly undemocratic for unelected members, who represent a small proportion of the country, to have such a place enshrined in the House of Lords. Nevertheless, for the Church (in it's widest sense), a greater issue exists. If we want the State to take a hands off approach to the Church and grant freedom in matters of religion, we too must forego a special place in parliament and take a hands off approach in the matters of State.

Notes

1. Of course, the same argument may apply to the established Presbyterian Church in Scotland