Tony Blair has looked constitutionally timid since devolution. Here is something he could do with huge symbolic and practical benefit. Only gilded vested interests would lose. He should disestablish the Church of England. He will do nothing unless the Church of England asks him to, but signals from the new Archbishop of Canterbury suggest that we may be about to see a historic shift in its position.
A BBC profile of Archbishop Rowan Williams broadcast on 1st December showed a man ill at ease with the establishment of the Church of England. "It's possible to have very fruitful, very constructive relations with government and public life without all the apparatus of legal establishment as it's evolved in England," he said.
How very different this sounds to his predecessor. On St George's Day 2002, Archbishop George Carey gave a lecture defending establishment: "In England, the interweaving of church and state and nation have come down to us through the long and steadily evolving set of relationships known as establishment... The Church of England alone among religious groupings has a comprehensive network of parishes and priests covering the entire country.
"The loudest voices [for disestablishment] tend to be those backing a clearly secular, and at times republican, agenda... Part of the Church's service-born out of establishment-must be on behalf of faith generally. That is the basis on which bishops in the House of Lords have interpreted aspects of their role... It is interesting that moving towards a secular basis for the state is something that many leaders of other faith communities strongly oppose."
Up to a point, Lord Carey. Of what "country" or "nation" do you speak? The UK comprises four territories. The Church of England is established in one. A different church entirely-the Church of Scotland-is established in another. The Anglican church was disestablished in Ireland in 1869 and in Wales in 1920. So the Archbishop's "country" here must be England. Even in England, the Catholics and Methodists would be surprised by the claim that they lack a comprehensive network of parishes and priests covering the entire country. The most recent published data from the Office for National Statistics suggest that the Catholic church has slightly more attenders than the Church of England.
Where are those statements from other faith communities supporting establishment of the Church of England? Thirty faith communities sent in their views on religious representation to the Wakeham Royal Commission on the House of Lords. Of these, 16 opposed the continued position of the established church, at least as regards the Lords. They included the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Catholic Union, the Methodist Church, and the Church of Scotland. Twelve offered no opinion. Two supported it: the Church of England and the Scottish Episcopal Church. The Board of Deputies of British Jews opposed it, but Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks supported it.
Is the Church of England a national church for times of triumph and disaster? In October 1966, 144 people, mostly children, were killed in the Aberfan disaster. The Cardiff Western Mail started a campaign for a memorial service in Westminster Abbey. Harold Wilson was advised to decline the request on the grounds that "the Welsh Church is disestablished, and has no claim on Westminster Abbey." There was no Abbey service. Perfectly appropriate, some Anglicans might say. But then they must not claim that the Church of England is a national church for the United Kingdom.
Until recently, disestablishment was a non-starter. The Church of England did not want it; the state (in the shape of Tony Blair) did not want it; neither Buckingham nor St James's Palace wanted it. But now we have an Archbishop of Canterbury who comes from a disestablished church. The calls for disestablishment do not only come from secularists or republicans. (Republicans don't want a monarch, so why should they care what religion the monarch they do not want must not belong to?) The joint committee now sitting on the future of the Lords is likely to recommend the ejection of the bishops. With one puff, the establishment of the Church of England could be blown over. And so it should be. No one would benefit more from its disestablishment than its own members, who have seen millions of pounds of their money lost in recent years by a body which (unlike the members of any other NGO) they cannot control.
What exactly does it mean to say that the Churches of Scotland and England are "established"? The Church of Scotland's understanding of establishment is miles away from Archbishop Carey's. It does not involve seats in the legislature. It does not make the crown the head of the Church. It does not involve coronation oaths. It does not empower parliament to govern the Church of Scotland. Maybe Anglicans could live with an establishment like that, which others could call disestablishment.
Most experts date the establishment of the Church of England to the Act of Supremacy in 1534, which declared that Henry VIII and his successors were the heads of the Church of England. Several 17th-century acts require the crown to be held by a member of the Church of England. The 1701 Act of Settlement debars any Catholic from succeeding to the crown. But Queen Anne, bound to uphold the Church of England, signed the Act of Union in 1707 which refers to the "true Protestant religion and Presbyterian Church government." All her successors have had to drop one Protestant truth and pick up a contradictory one whenever they cross into Scotland.
The right of parliament and the executive to govern the Church of England continues to this day. It includes the right of the prime minister to nominate bishops (from a list compiled by the Church) and to select cathedral deans, and the right of parliament to legislate in Church matters, although the latter is devolved in practice. In 1928, the Commons rejected the proposed Church of England prayer book on the grounds that it was popish. The majority to reject included Scottish MPs, none of whose business it was. The West Lothian question was alive and well before Tam Dalyell. But this did not turn the leaders of the Church against establishment. Perhaps their seats in the Lords made the difference.
A great deal of pious hokum has been written about the Lords Spiritual, some of it by Lord Wakeham and his colleagues on the Royal Commission. The commission celebrated the bishops as "reflecting the British history and culture of seeking to heal religious conflict and promoting ever greater religious tolerance and inclusiveness." Try telling that to Gladstone or Lloyd George. The Church of England bishops voted en bloc against Irish Home Rule (twice) and Welsh disestablishment-neither of which was any of their Lordships' business. In order to protect the power of the Church of England over schools, they helped to throw out the education bills introduced by the government which had won a landslide victory in the elected house in 1906 and 1908.
The currently sitting joint committee of both houses of parliament on the future of the upper chamber contains no bishops-to their fury. Some believe that the joint committee, whose final report is due in the spring, will recommend the removal of the bishops from the Lords. The responses to the Royal Commission shows that almost no one outside the Church of England itself supports the continuation of their role.
If the bishops leave the Lords, is the rest of establishment worth the candle? No, and the biggest gainers from disestablishment will be Church of England worshippers. First and foremost, they will gain control over their own appointments. No other Church understands how Anglicans tolerate their bishops being appointed by someone who need not even be a Christian. The appointment of cathedral deans is another fine mess, as the Trollopian goings-on in Lincoln and Ripon have shown.
In finance, the Church commissioners have had power without responsibility. No surprise, therefore, that they lost millions of pounds of worshippers' funds on rash investments. The commissioners reported not to the Church, but to parliament, which (as it was not interested) never scrutinised the accounts. The Church of England, like all churches, should come under the same regulatory regime as every other charity.
Staying with finance, Archbishop Carey makes a good point badly. The Church of England guards priceless parts of England's heritage-its cathedrals and its parish churches, and its literary and musical glories in the shape of the Authorised Version, the 1662 Prayer Book, and church music from Orlando Gibbons to Benjamin Britten. This heritage is in poor shape. Indeed, traditional church music is dying. Many of Britain's greatest composers-Tallis, Byrd, Gibbons, Weelkes, Purcell, Elgar, Britten, Tippett-reached their sublimest heights in their religious music. Think of Tallis's 40-part motet, or Janet Baker singing the Alleluia in The Dream of Gerontius. Would France or Germany contemplate the disappearance of Berlioz or Bach from the repertoire?
Church leaders tend to feel ambivalent about this heritage. The Church of England has too many churches for its present number of attenders, and they are in the wrong place-Norfolk villages, not Nottingham suburbs. Moreover, many clergymen believe that modern Bible translations, a modern liturgy and happy-clappy music appeal more to people than the Authorised Version and Tallis. But as the Church of England gets no special state aid to maintain its physical and intellectual glories, it will do no worse by being disestablished.
Archbishop Carey's best point is that the Church of England is a church of last resort. Not so much for national ceremonies but for individual tragedies and triumphs. People are comforted by the thought that a national church exists for their weddings and funerals. But they fail to support it at any other time. What should be done?
First of all, the Church of Scotland behaves as a national church of last resort in the same way as the Church of England. But it is, practically, disestablished. Secondly, if chemists and dentists can combine to run an emergency rota, so can churches. Each local Council of Churches-including Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists and others-could run a "duty minister" scheme and publicise it in libraries and hospitals. Hospital chaplains, one of the unsung church operations, already do this. For a minority, it matters tremendously which denomination consoles them at times of personal tragedy. For the majority, it does not, but to have someone to turn to does matter.
Disestablishment is liberating, as John Adams admitted in old age to Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson had supported separation of church and state in America; Adams had opposed it). Sweden has just done it at the church's own request. This is a no-lose New Labour policy. It is radical, it is right and it has virtually no opponents.
