Various worldviews have shaped the challenging situation in which British Christians now find themselves. Pluralism both defines and prescribes diversification as the social norm, celebrating difference in ways which can be positive for religious tolerance and democracy, but which typically deny Christian claims to objective, universal truth. Relativism likewise assumes that truth is contingent rather than ultimate, and so struggles with revealed, monotheistic religion. Secularism is ideologically committed to interpreting the public world without reference to God, whereas secularization describes the de facto marginalisation of religion from civic institutions, and its consequent ‘privatisation’. Clearly, both have been evident in the decline of churchgoing and the gradual weakening of public Christianity in Britain. Also detrimental to the Church’s witness has been individualism, which owes much to the Enlightenment’s emphasis on the thinking subject as the locus of truth, and so tends to dethrone God in favour of human reason or will.
These trends are accompanied by a growing emphasis on national identity, both in the UK, thanks to devolution, and overseas, where recent conflicts in the Balkans and Sudan demonstrate the darker, nationalistic side of this trend. In Britain, it is English identity which appears the most vexed. This is further complicated by the fact that England is now a decidedly multicultural nation, due to the significant presence of immigrant communities. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales also have immigrants, but since their national identity is relatively strong, lines of assimilation are more clear-cut. Conceiving ‘English’ or ‘British’ citizenship for a population as multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual as that which exists now is a great challenge. In this context Christians must be aware of the cultural trappings of their beliefs, and emphasise those aspects of their faith which are universal and essential rather than ethnically contingent. Any notion of citizenship must entail respect for other traditions and religious outlooks. It is on this basis that Christians can be good citizens - just as long as they are not forced by the ruling authorities to gag their own authentic gospel witness.
Questions of national character and citizenship bear especially on denominations which define themselves positively with respect to the nation or state. No doubt the contribution of Free, Independent and other non-established churches is immense. Yet it is typically these national and ‘state’ churches which offer the starkest measure of where Christianity stands in civic terms today. Although the Church of Scotland might in a sense be called ‘established’, and the Church in Wales is disestablished yet national, the Church of England’s establishment has generated the most vigorous debate about the place of public religion in a pluralist context. In response to this debate, the Commission recognises that there are various specific constitutional issues at stake beyond the basic principle of establishment.
On bishops in the House of Lords, the Commission accepts that if a proposal to remove or reduce the number of bishops were made as part of a thoroughgoing reform of the second chamber, this should not necessarily be opposed. However, it would question any stand-alone initiative to remove the bishops, since this would send the wrong signal about the role of religion in public life - namely that it should be officially and specifically diminished. On the involvement of the Prime Minister in the appointment of bishops, the Commission understands that this could be seen as embodying the principle of lay participation in church decision-making, but does not believe that its removal would cause major constitutional problems. Indeed, it suggests that this might actually enhance the Church’s integrity.
While the monarchy should be shaped as effectively as possible to meet the needs of British society in the 21st century, at the next Coronation the heir to the throne should be discouraged from using the title ‘Defender of Faith’ rather than ‘Defender of the Faith’, lest it be construed as syncretistic. Holding separate ceremonies for his accession as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and his recognition as Head of State might in the latter case allow more scope for the participation of other faith groups. Although the Commission is split on the propriety of establishment as such, it stresses that the relation of Church to State at any point in history is contingent, so that loss (or surrender) of established status need not jeopardise the capacity of the Church to fulfil its mission. Slow, natural attenuation of establishment, such as in the lapse of the blasphemy laws, does not warrant concerted resistance; but significant resources should not be diverted to its wholesale dismantling.
