The Church of England[1], as the established Church in England, is not currently seeking to become more ‘free’, and voices calling specifically for disestablishment within the church are relatively few. That is largely because during the past century the Church of England has gained freedom from state control that is substantial and (in the view of most Anglicans) sufficient. The Church of England enjoys enviable opportunities for evangelism, pastoral care and other forms of mission that its established and historic position provides. The question many Christians, both inside and outside the Church of England, will want to ask is: could not that church do more to exploit those opportunities?
Many would regard the essence of establishment of the Church of England as rooted in its psycho-social position developed by virtue of its historic national monopoly. However, it may nowadays be argued that it is the diocesan-parochial system of pastoral ministry and mission that characterises establishment, rather than the presence of twenty-six bishops in the House of Lords, the largely symbolic role of the monarch as its Supreme Governor, and the involvement of the Prime Minister in the appointment of bishops and deans.[2] With its parish churches, clergy and lay ministers in virtually every community of the land, and numerous chaplaincies in the armed forces, hospitals and education (though now often multi-denominational and increasingly multi-faith) the Church of England is portrayed as ideally structured for mission in some highly publicly visible ways. The rationale for establishment on this view is the Church’s responsibility on behalf of the gospel for all people and all communities, a responsibility that is recognised by the state. The relation of the monarch to the church symbolises such national recognition and corresponding national responsibility, though it has wider spiritual significance, too.[3] Establishment should not necessarily be regarded as a comparatively modern innovation, brought about at the Reformation by the actions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. The reality of establishment, if not the word itself, goes back to the Emperor Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire early in the fourth century. Needless to say, there was no separation of Church and State, or of sacred and secular, in medieval Europe. During the Middle Ages Church and State became slightly more distinguishable aspects of the one Christian commonwealth and society. Like Siamese twins they were conjoined yet still distinguishable bodies. Theologically they were united in God, but both God’s deputies, the pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, wrestled for dominance (as did their more local equivalents, such as Archbishop Thomas à Becket and King Henry II). Locked together in a sacral model of society and a hierarchical ordering of the universe, pope and emperor, bishop and prince struggled for supremacy. The Reformation altered the dynamics of this across Europe, as the powers of papal jurisdiction were assumed by national and local rulers, but it did not affect the essential principles that held Church and State together right through the upheavals of the 16th century.
The expression ‘by law established’, in reference to the Church of England, originally meant that the national religion had become ‘settled’, ‘determined’ or ‘resolved’, by the action of the state, after a period of turbulence and conflict. From 1660 onwards ‘the church by law established’ held negative associations particularly for non-conformist Christians who contrasted it with ‘the church by grace established’. It was not until the second half of the 20th century that the term ‘establishment’ acquired more general pejorative or satirical overtones, though many Non-Conformists already disliked the term in the 19th century. In the 20th century the use of the expression ‘The Establishment’ began to be employed in a largely non-religious sense for the half-imagined privileged and wealthy elite who are alleged to manage affairs behind the scenes, usually managing them badly, though to their own advantage.
The Church of England enjoys considerable freedom under Parliament to manage its own affairs, but total authority has not been delegated to it in a wholesale manner. The Church of England controls its own doctrine, liturgy and discipline, though the place of the Book of Common Prayer is secured by law. The General Synod, which is made up of the three houses of bishops, clergy and laity, has authority to govern and legislate by canon for the life of the Church without reference to Parliament. Legislation that either breaks new ground or that might bear on the rights of the Queen’s subjects under the law is enacted by Measure, which requires parliamentary approval.
The fact that the Prime Minister, in advising the Queen on the appointment of diocesan bishops, has discretion between two names put up by a commission of the General Synod remains a stumbling block to some Christians. This residual role of the state appears to them to be the last objectionable relic of earlier state control of the Church. However, many English Anglicans probably regard this as a relatively minor matter and do not see it as a major issue of principle. Nevertheless, many committed Anglicans believe the appointment of a diocesan bishop should be a matter of national significance and also of concern to all the people and communities within a diocese, not merely to those who attend church regularly. The arrangement could also be seen as a useful check on appointments that might be made in haste and repented of at leisure.
Anglicans consider the heart of the Church of England is to be found in the territorial ministry of the word, the sacraments, and pastoral care through dioceses and parishes, though this depends as much on historical factors as on established status. The diocesan bishop is canonically the ‘chief pastor of all that are within his diocese, as well laity as clergy’ (Canon C18). Traditionally, parish clergy have ministered not just to churchgoers but to everyone in the parish. This ministry to the whole community began to fail in the industrial revolution and has become increasingly difficult to sustain in recent decades. In some parishes, it has to be said, the gospel mission to the whole community has lapsed through a loss of vision, will and motivation. The calling of the Church of England as a national, established and territorial church is currently going by default in a culture and a society drifting further and further from its Christian roots, where outreach among the unchurched and involvement in the wider community is all the more imperative. Ecumenical collaboration, such as that signalled by the Anglican-Methodist Covenant and the informal conversations between the Baptist Union and the Church of England’s Council for Christian Unity, can help to some extent in bridging the mission gap. However, what is urgently needed is a major re-envisioning of the mission of the Church of England, fresh strategic thinking about how such a mission might be possible, and then the harnessing of the very considerable potential of laity and clergy in order to attempt this.
The Anglican church north of the border is the Scottish Episcopal Church. It is a tenth the size of the Church of Scotland and also of the Roman Catholic Church in that land. It is a member province of the Anglican Communion. It elects its own bishops and in theory governs its own affairs without recourse to the State. It is, therefore, a ‘free church’, particularly in relation to the Church of Scotland.
[1] An indispensable guide for serious students of the Church of England is Norman Doe, The Legal Framework of the Church of England: A Critical Study in a Comparative Context (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).
[2] See, for example, Paul Avis, Church, State and Establishment.
[3] See Ian Bradley, God Save the Queen: The Spiritual Dimension of monarchy, (London: Darton, Longman & Todd), 2002.
