The denominational Free Churches are, of course, by definition not established: they are free to govern themselves in worship, doctrine and discipline under the law, without state interference which mainly motivated their struggle for freedom. Their tradition has historically been that of dissent from the Established Church, though more recently numerous independent evangelical congregations, Pentecostalism, Black Majority Churches and other ‘free church’ groups have seen rapid and substantial growth. The link between classical Pentecostalism and the burgeoning neo-Pentecostal or charismatic movement is hugely significant for the growth and development of contemporary ecclesiology. It is also significant in terms of its social impact, not least in the immigration to Britain of many African-Caribbean Pentecostals and Evangelicals since the 1950s.
Suffering religious, civil, legal, political and social disabilities for their nonconformity until near the end of the 19th century, from the 17th century dissent evolved into free and subsequently into independent or gathered congregations (as distinct from territorial ecclesiology). In the period from 1660 to about 1900, not to be Anglican effectively implied constitutional, political and social exclusion, and vestiges of this can still be encountered today.
It is pertinent to ask in what ways the ‘Free Churches’ are more ‘free’ than the Church of England (or the Church of Scotland for that matter)? Of course, their vision of freedom historically was motivated by the desire for liberty from episcopal and state control or interference. But arguably much of the power and dynamism fuelling evangelical revival during the last three centuries has come from outside the established church and has influenced it from outside. Those who embrace the Free Church tradition believe that their ‘freedom’ makes their mission more effective, and there is evidence to support this.
Of course, the question of Free Church identity remains fiercely controversial. Some Anglicans like to point out that the Presbyterian Church of England, despite its obvious nonconformity, sought in the late 17th century to be recognised as the established form of church polity. They therefore suggest that the United Reformed Church, with its Presbyterian foundation, is fundamentally establishmentarian in its traditional make up. Because Methodism sprang from the Church of England and followed on the heels of the historic Dissenting tradition, it is pointed out that some Methodists are uncomfortable about being labelled ‘Free Church’. It is also noted that both the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church have come about in their present forms through a series of Acts of Parliament.
The term ‘Free Church’ has acquired a very different meaning in Scotland as distinct from England and Wales. The Free Presbyterian Church emerged in 1843, not in opposition to the concept of a ‘national church’ as such, but through a seceding group of Church of Scotland evangelicals who rejected a specific ecclesiological procedure maintained by the established church from 1712 – namely, the right of wealthy landowners to appoint ministers to a parish over the heads of its members. Many of the most prominent Free Church secessionists in fact played a key part in the formation of the Evangelical Alliance in 1846. In 1893 a schism within the Free Church of Scotland itself led to the formation of the Free Presbyterian Church. Again, the argument here was not specifically concerned with national representation or state oversight, but with the Free Church Declaratory Act, which distanced the Free Church of Scotland from strict adherence to the Westminster Confession. Those who left to become Free Presbyterians did so on theological rather than ecclesiological grounds. The Westminster Confession historically could be said to reflect establishment Presbyterian aspirations.
The United Presbyterian Church began as a more explicitly anti-establishment body. Having been distinguished by a particular commitment to overseas mission, it resisted state funding of the church on the grounds that it might shackle and compromise evangelistic zeal. However by 1900 it united with the Free Church of Scotland to form the United Free Church. Even so, this move was opposed by a small minority on the Free Church side, which asserted rights to all the property of the Free Church. In 1901-2 the courts found against this minority, but in 1904 the House of Lords reversed that decision and the Westminster government had to step in to effect a settlement. The United Free Church then re-united with the Church of Scotland in 1929, though once more a small number went their own way as the ‘United Free Church of Scotland (continuing)’, or ‘Continuers. Here, most of the objections were against the Establishment of religion under the State. The Free Church of Scotland was split again in January 2000, when 31 of its ministers formed a breakaway group in protest at perceived liberalisation and immorality.
What does it mean to be a Dissenter or nonconformist today? Do reasons for dissent still exist? Religious uniformity, backed by state sanctions and persecution, has not existed for just over one hundred years when the last nonconformist disabilities were finally removed. The Church of England is not a state-controlled church. Our culture and society is characterised by pluralism and huge indifference to the claims and credentials of all the churches. Are the divisions between the established and the free churches on points of principle or for other reasons? Wherein lies the contemporary validity and force of the dissenting tradition?
The traditional hostility of English Dissenters to the idea of an established Church is now comparatively muted. Legally enforced conformity and uniformity of worship, doctrine and polity was last attempted in 1662 and lasted only until 1689 with the coming of toleration. Civil and political disabilities for Protestant Dissenters were substantially removed in 1828, though certain disabilities remained until the late 19th century. The denominational Free Churches began to soften their hostility to establishment in the 1920s.
The Baptists stem historically from some combination, that has not yet been definitively clarified, of the English Separatists, who emerged in the late 16th century, and Continental Anabaptism of various kinds. Both strands repudiated the idea of a Christian commonwealth and a territorial, established Church of England. They replaced the ecclesiology of Christendom, which the Reformers had left intact – that of a Christian society or nation – with the model of an eclectic, gathered congregation in covenanted fellowship. They baptised (or ‘re-baptised’) their converts and emphasised church discipline in the form of excommunication. Altogether, this tradition has repudiated the idea of a national, established church and – in Britain at least, though not in the U.S.A. – it has therefore perhaps tended to find itself as a denomination more at the margins of civil society, not least as a result of its lack of central formal representation. The Baptist Union is a voluntary association or network of local churches rather than an organised ‘church denomination’ with a hierarchical representational structure. However, it came into being, like the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, through Act of Parliament.
The Methodists may perhaps be regarded as a special case. Methodism’s roots in the first half of the 18th century are certainly Anglican – John and Charles Wesley and John Whitefield being clergymen of the established Church. Though in their outdoor preaching ministry they sat lightly to parochial and diocesan structures, they did not question the principle of establishment. John Wesley’s original aim was to reform and revive the established Church and to strengthen its national mission, but the Methodist societies became entirely independent of the Church of England from the end of the 18th century. However, Methodism gained adherents from historic Dissent and from those who had never been nurtured in any church. For a period, the Wesleyan Methodist Church maintained an essentially conservative political outlook, but this was eroded by Methodist support for Roman Catholic Emancipation in the 1820s, which was generally opposed by the Established Church. The Primitive Methodists held strongly disestablishmentarian views. Methodist opposition to the 1902 Education Act, which required non-Anglican taxpayers to fund Church of England schools, set Methodists at odds with the Established Church. The Anglican-Methodist Covenant for England of 2003 brought the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain into a declared new relationship of mutual recognition and mutual commitment. Methodist leaders and Anglican bishops have agreed increasingly to work and speak alongside each other in civil society at regional and national levels. The 2004 report Church, State and Establishment, received by the Methodist Conference, refrains from calling for actual disestablishment of the Church of England, but diplomatically states that further changes to the relationship between the Church of England and the state ‘would better enable our growing together in Christian witness in England’.
In the later 20th century and early 21st century the ‘free churches’ are increasingly identified not just with the historic dissenting ‘organised denominations’ but also with Pentecostals and ‘organic networks’, as reflected in the huge rise of devolved evangelical groups, such as Icthus, Vineyard and New Frontiers, as well as networks that cross denominations, such as New Wine, the latter ironically stemming from the Church of England itself but operating in a supra-denominational manner.
