My Grandfather’s Column
Antidisestablishmentarianism
There are many people, including many keen Church members, who want to see the Church of England’s link with the State abolished. They want disestablishment. At one time I was of this opinion myself. In this day and age, it is said, there should be no place for an established Church. Hardly anyone now, people say, believes in Christianity, particularly as expressed in the national Church. And why, if you are a firm believer, should the State have any part in the appointment of the Church of England’s Bishops?. Above all, why should this group of a minority religion have a crucial role in the crowning of the Head of State?
The government is now proposing to bring in a bill for constitutional reform which would end the current rule giving preference to male over female heirs to the throne and doing away with the requirement that the monarch should be a member of the protestant Church as established by law..
On the face of it these seem utterly reasonable reforms and for my part I see no objection at all to the first of these proposals. After all our most successful monarchs have largely been female. The second proposal is in fact much more controversial. Currently and for the last 400 years the monarch has been the titular head of the Church of England and there is still a firm link (though looser than formerly) between the government of the day and the Church of England with its senior bishops having seats in the House of Lords. Wouldn’t it be much fairer if the non-conformist Churches, not to mention Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were equally privileged? Wouldn’t non C of E citizens prefer to do away with this link altogether? Actually the answer to this last question is a resounding “No”. The Jews, the Roman Catholics, the majority of the non-conformist Churches and representative Muslims have all said that they are glad to have the established Church to stick up for all people of faith against the secular humanist culture in which we have to live.
A final small but significant question: “Who wants to get rid of the ceremony of the coronation service as performed generation after generation by the Archbishop of Canterbury? For my part I remain an antidisestablishmentarian and now, if not always, I stick with the proverbial saying:”If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.
–Peter Graham
E-mail: peter.graha[at]bucklandnewton[dot]com
offpat:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:42 am
but it is broke – 200 years past its sell-by date.
I know many non conformists who DO want to see a clean break between church & state, most rational and non-patronising spiritually inclined people do.
- of course the majority of Churchy types don’t, where might it leave them? – the secular world might finally usher in the age in which we grow away from patronising peddlers of superstition and learn to stand on our own two feet…it may not, but disestablishment is a much needed pre-requisite.
LYT:
October 14th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I’m not a fan of establishment of religion, but consider — in this country we’ve always had separation of church and state, and in yours, never. Which of the two has the craziest religious people?
When religion isn’t established and has to compete, it’s the charismatic ones that thrive, and they’re usually more insane.
offpat:
October 16th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
you just have far more crazy people full stop
or period.
LYT:
October 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Maybe we’d be better behaved with a monarchy and state church to keep us in line.
offpat:
October 17th, 2008 at 4:17 am
naaah, I’m with you on the worth of fighting a war of independence to get away from all that –
what the non conformists here have is fine – and disestablishment would in no way encourage them to become more bizarre and TV evangelistic – I truly feel those aspects are more a part of the general culture of the USA than anything the changes to our current dogma re church and religion would manage here…
after all Churches cannot be legal charities here – they don’t get that funding break (though they do know how to avoid taxes)