You are here:   Features > What is the Good of Establishment?
 

The fourth thing that I have in mind when I talk about "establishment" is the Church of England's privileged position in state education. 

This, therefore, is the establishment that I want to defend. Against it there are two main arguments, both of them moral, one emanating from secularists and the other from within the churches themselves. I shall deal with the latter first and briefly, since I do not think it cogent.

The main Christian objection to establishment is that it corrupts the Church, constraining its freedom to speak the truth to power. To this I would respond that "establishment" can mean all manner of thing. Maybe in the past certain forms of it have spelt the Babylonian — or the Constantinian — captivity of the Church, but I cannot see that it does so now. Establishment did not prevent the Church of England from making head-on criticism of the Thatcher Government in Faith in the City in 1985. Nor did it prevent the Archbishop of Canterbury from publicly dissenting from Prime Minister Blair's decision to go to war against Iraq in 2003. Nor has it stopped him from warning the current Coalition Government against using the "Big Society" as a fig-leaf for dismantling welfare provision. 

Besides, the tying of its prophetic tongue is only one situation that the Church should strive to avoid. Another is following an uncharitable and moralistic media into a self-flattering cynicism about those who bear responsibility for governing. With regard to the latter, establishment in the form of episcopal participation in the work of the House of Lords helps to keep at least one major civil social body sensitive to the difficulties and complexities of the necessary tasks of government. And this is important when too many leaders in the churches are inclined by the liberal zeitgeist in general, and liberation theology in particular, to take a relentlessly critical view of the state, and to assume that a Christian voice has only one, prophetic register. Or, rather, to assume that prophecy always comes from the Left. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
obreption
March 31st, 2011
2:03 PM
Perhaps the writer ought to be reminded of Her Majesty's styles and titles and other oaths taken at the Coronation. The Church of England may be established in England, it isn't in Wales and it certainly isn't in Scotland. The Church of Scotland is protected by the Sovereign's oath to maintain the Presbyterian nature of the Church. During the Enlightenment, there were many arguments for disestablishment. Many thought (Hume and others) that it might be best to leave the established churches to fade, as has happened in the Church of Sweden, and to some extent within Scotland and England. What is deceit is when some cleric - whether Roman, Anglican, Rabbi, Hindu or Imam - decides to exact political influence by denial of such 'gifts' as 'sacraments' to those that do not uphold their views. Given the recent child sex abuse cases around the world, we don't need any advice from some theologians whose names escape me. In ecclesiastical terms, deceit can be described as an obreption, a modern day mot du jour.

TreenonPoet
March 31st, 2011
1:03 PM
"...let me make clear right at the beginning what I have in mind. First there is the Coronation Service, in which the head of state, kneeling, receives authorisation from above, not from below." Thank you for making it clear so early in your article that it is not to be taken seriously. The establishment seeks to propagate the lie that there is a higher authority, then claims entitlement to power bestowed by that authority. Deceit and fraud are not a good basis for government.

John Dale
March 31st, 2011
12:03 PM
What utter drivel. This just serves to convince me even more so that we should disestablish as soon as possible.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.