Consitutional Sub-Group Plenary 12th March 2004 - Transcription
Oral witness: Rt Rev Michael Nazir Ali
Frank Lyall: Welcome, Bishop, to help us with this inquiry. Your papers dealt with coronation and to some extent the House of Lords. The question which interests me is the inter-relationship of the Church of England legislative process and the civil authority, shall we call it, rather than the State. Can you lead us off by summarising your main thoughts in these and other areas that you think might be of importance to us.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: Thank you. If I may make three brief points to begin with.
Quite a lot of my time in recent years has been spent in discussing with Muslim scholars the relationship of religion to law and religion to state. Some years ago, I conducted a written dialogue with the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Pakistan, Nasim Hassan Shah, on the question of the relationship of Islam to the State. In the course of that dialogue he wrote that, for him, an Islamic state was one that enabled Muslims to be good Muslims but would not coerce anyone to be Muslim, or not to be Muslim. I thought this was a good approach from the point of view of our dialogue and I wrote a response to what he’d said. In the context of the development of thinking about the relationship of Islam to the State, quite a number of Muslim scholars are seeing this in terms not of coercion but of influence, and recent constitutional provisions for the transitional period in Iraq also take that sort of position - that while they recognise Islam as the official religion of the State, it is seen as only as one source of law.
There are variations on this. In North Africa, for instance, the Sharia is seen in terms of providing principles of law. The Government of the United Kingdom has supported the way in which things have gone in Iraq in recognising the role of religion in the State. I have had the opportunity of asking the government whether it perceives any parallels between the natural development in Iraq and the situation in the United Kingdom. If you say that in a country like Iraq, because of its history, its culture and its social fabric, Islam has to be recognised as a player, that also has implications for a country like Britain. In what way, if at all, does the Government recognise this?
Where the relationship of religion to the State is concerned – I know there are some here who specialise in this area as far as Britain is concerned – from the Church of England's point of view, the very origins of the legislature find the Church involved. The Anglo Saxons already had bishops and abbots. The model parliament regularised that situation. The Magna Carta and later the Bill of Rights in 1689 were seen by the Church as a defence against Royal absolutism and for religious tolerance. There is a quite clear association of Christian ideas with the development of state policy and law; ideas like liberty and responsibility, and even more modern ideas like prevention from harm can be traced to Christian origins. The relationship of a particular church to the State has changed over the years. When there was only one ecclesiastical entity, Bishops sat in the Lords, and at one time they were the majority. I sometimes think about that when we are debating issues and about to vote on them! And it was in the House of Lords that John Fisher, my predecessor, said about Henry VIII’s claim to royal supremacy that he was willing to admit it insofar as the law of Christ allowed. I think that’s quite a good Presbyterian position, probably.
Frank Lyall: If I may interject, our equivalent called James I ‘God’s silly vassal’!
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: Yes, but that’s overruling divine providence!
So the first thing is that the relationship goes back to the very origins of the State. Obviously, at the time of the Reformation, it was defined in particular ways, and north and south of the border in different ways. But since then, it has continued to be modified – no one should imagine that the nature of an established church has remained the same by successive Acts of Tolerance, the opening up of the universities and professions to Roman Catholics and Non Conformists, and the doing-away of specific church taxation, and so on. If you believe in some kind of continuing relationship of a particular church with the State, then it is not to say that it will always remain same.
The second point I wanted to make was about the relationship of religion to morals and to law. While it is uncontroversial that moral awareness is universal and permeates all societies in one way or another, historically, moral systems have often been elaborated in the context of religious traditions. The popular agnostic or atheist question is, "Don’t you think I’m as moral as you are or even more?" The answer to that is ‘yes’, and ‘maybe’, but that is not the proper question. The proper question is whether an account can be given of moral origins by people who may themselves be morally superior to those of religious belief. It’s that sort of question that has to be addressed. Where law is concerned, it’s obvious that in any civilised society, law must have coercive as well as moral force if it is to be received by the general population. While not all moral insights are capable of translation into legislation, nevertheless, important moral ideas underpin legislation today or should do. I often find it’s the Bishop’s task to probe that kind of underpinning in particular pieces of legislation when they come to Parliament. The ideas of liberty, responsibility, prevention from harm which under-gird so much contemporary legislation are often taken to mean that they have significance for the individual. Though the idea of social harm is not greatly to the fore, yet the judges in the superior courts have often seen the relationship of legislation to the common good and that must be a question that is significant to religious traditions of moral discourse.
Finally, the relationship of establishment for a church and the idea of a national mission. The establishment of the Church of England, certainly, and even more of the Church of Scotland is quite a limited sort of establishment - not the kind of seamlessness that one used to see in Scandinavia for instance, and perhaps still does in a place like Denmark where the Minister for Religious Affairs is the supreme authority in the Lutheran Church. It’s not like that. The role of the Sovereign has been limited since the time of Elizabeth’s injunctions and her admonition, and found quite clearly articulated in Article 37 of the Articles of Religion, which says that while the Sovereign has jurisdiction in every part of the realm, this does not mean that the Sovereign has any spiritual authority in the Church and certainly not authority over Word and Sacrament. So, it’s a limited role and it may become more limited. In relation to Parliament, since the enabling Act of 1919, the role of Parliament vis-à-vis the Church of England has become more limited. It is more limited than perhaps the Ecclesiastical Committee believes. Certainly Parliament is excluded from scrutinising church legislation on doctrine and worship. But even in other areas, my own view is that Parliament is limited to viewing church legislation in terms of its implications for the liberties of other citizens, the inhabitants of the country seen as citizens. That was the object of the Act. However, sometimes the Ecclesiastical Committee sees it in another way, claims for itself a wider remit, but that’s a matter for discussion. The question about continuing Establishment for me is the presence of the Church in the Councils of State. If it is seen that the State wishes such a presence, wishes to hear the voice of the Church in its councils, for as long as it wishes to do this, why should the Church not be willing to provide such a voice, as long as it is without compromise as to fundamental principles? However, if we get to a stage where the State no longer wishes to hear the Church’s voice in its councils that will not mean that the Church of England ceases to be a national church, with a national mission. It is quite possible for there to be disestablishment and for the Church’s consciousness of its national mission to increase not decrease. And that may also be true of the Church of Scotland across the border. I wait to hear from you.
One of the modifications of Establishment is the co-option of other Christian churches and even people of other faiths into certain areas of national life where they may be seen to express their particular spiritual, social and political values. The Church of England has welcomed this widening of Establishment in that sense. My own view is that the Church of England’s principled position should be that Britain is a country formed in terms of its law, its political and social institutions by the Christian faith, which lies at the root of all these things and of other things, the structure of the family, and many social attitudes, and that this should be recognised in public life. It is then possible to say that this is the thing we are but we welcome people of other views and faiths to contribute to national life. So it’s both a vantage point and openness. I think the two can be held together.
So Chairman, that’s all I’d like to say by way of introduction. Thank you for the opportunity.
Frank Lyall: Thank you very much for that. You’ve put forward a number of areas which go in different directions and which, I’m sure, the panel would like to explore. You speak in terms of the Sovereign’s rule having been limited as time goes on. A problem is the question of the religious belief and personal practices of the Sovereign. One wonders what may happen in future, and therefore whether the idea of the Sovereign as the Head of the Church is something that should be carefully examined.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: As you know, technically, the Sovereign is not the Head of the Church but the Supreme Governor, which is an important distinctive. Henry claimed to be the Head of the Church and it was in respect of that that John Fisher said that even he could accept that, in so far as the law of Christ allows. Well, how far does the law of Christ allow? That’s something we could discuss. Elizabeth was much more modest in her view of the Sovereign and Church. Hence the modification of the title to Supreme Governor and hence the injunctions and the admonition. The Puritans asked how they could they have an earthly ruler? And the admonition and injunctions clearly say that the Monarch by claiming to be supreme governor is not claiming any kind of spiritual jurisdiction. It is simply that the King of England must be king of all England – that there was no aspect of life in the country that was excluded from the Monarch being monarch of the country. However, the Church’s special position was also recognised. For instance, the benefit of clergy continued until the 19th century. Clergy could not be tried in secular courts. The jurisdiction of Bishops - there were questions about worship, however, Sacraments and the preaching of the Word - continued as they had before. The one change of significance was that the lay voice was seen to be Parliament itself. Because of this co-extensive view of society. And that kind of arrangement ended with 1919 Act which saw that Parliament would not have untrammelled say in the affairs of the Church.
Frank Lyall: Why continue with the notion of the Supreme Governor being the Head of State then? Because the Church of England is a minority within the State as a whole…
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: Well, that’s a controversial point. We discussed this ourselves. The numbers of people baptised in the Church of England is still 26m. A recent survey for English Heritage says that 86% of the population claimed they’d been to church for one reason or another in the past 12 months. Four out of ten people claimed they’d been to Church (not the Church of England, I mean any church) at Christmas. So what you mean by a minority is a very complex question to address. If you mean people who come every Sunday, or every month…? When I appeared on Soul of Britain on the BBC, they had done a survey prior to the programme: 23% of their sample said they were regular churchgoers, 38% said they were occasional churchgoers and 50% said they went once a year. Well, not everyone tells the truth, I’m aware of that, but that is what people say and think and this is to some extent the basis of the church’s consciousness of a national mission. There is an opportunity created by this mindset, which many people continue to have. Now the question about Supreme Governor – of course you could have a different title – if Henry’s title can be abandoned by Elizabeth I, Elizabeth I’s could be abandoned by Elizabeth II! That’s not an impossibility. But while there is a monarchy, some relationship of an established church with the monarchy is constitutionally essential, especially if that church is represented by virtue of it being an established church in Parliament. If the Monarchy were not to exist - suppose England became a republic and even the Crown Prosecution Service became the Public Prosecution Service - one would then have to ask how an established church can continue. I think it could. I don’t think it just depends on the Monarchy. But while there is a monarchy, there must be a relationship, whatever you call it.
David Hilborn: This is rather out of sequence but since you brought that up, I must ask: Have you any reflections on the fact, that for a while, we did have a commonwealth, a republic? Are there any lessons to be learned from that at all? There is the fact of history that we have had an interregnum…
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: It is quite possible to imagine the Church of England as a Presbyterian church – it nearly or did become that in the course of the commonwealth – but there was pressure from the 1550s onwards by the Puritans to turn it into a Presbyterian polity (and it could have become so). Equally it could have regained communion with Rome. Just as there was a commonwealth interregnum, there was an interregnum under Mary. Both scenarios happened and one has to imagine that they might happen again. There’s no particular reason why they couldn't. You did also ask about the behaviour of monarchs and so forth and the relation to the Constitution. Whatever we may think in terms of the spiritual and moral condition of the individual concerned, I don't think there’s particularly a constitutional problem because the Church of England has, until now, retained almost an indissolublist position on marriage. And yet the person who established it in the form in which we find it now was prolific in divorcing and remarriage! And this could be said for example about the lifestyle of Charles II, the one who brought it back from the exile of the commonwealth. A predecessor of mine, John Warner, was given his See back at the time of the Restoration and built Bromley College. Of course, the Church must exercise a pastoral ministry with respect to the lifestyle of the Royal Family, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has a particular responsibility in that matter but, extremes aside, it doesn’t affect the constitutional relationship.
Frank Lyall: But it may make the national mission of the Church somewhat discredited though if the Supreme Governor is seen by the modern media that we have to be somewhat deficient.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: Yes, not necessarily discredited, but it certainly won’t do it any favours. This is where the Church needs to exercise a pastoral ministry in respect to certain situations.
David Porter: A lot of what you present I want to challenge. While accepting a national mission for the Church, and the many denominations that exist, I would see them all having a national mission. How you’ve conceived of it would not be my conception of what it looks like. Where I want to go with my question is more how are you conceiving of the State in all of this? It seems to me – the passing comment about the CPS is a superficial illustration of it – the whole nature of the State since feudal times, and from the princely states, post-monarchical to territorial nation states, has changed dramatically. One of problems we have in the UK is that there is a reality coming to bear constitutionally, forced by multi-nationals and the way politics is being done and the way Europe is going, which goes to the heart of being subjects (or citizens) that actually requires us to participate in a massive constitutional exercise in redefining rights and accessed information. And rather than being at the forefront of that as the Church for gospel values for truth and saying, ‘Ditch this pretence at monarchy under which you have Official Secrets acts, army officers taking oaths of allegiance to the Crown rather than to the people and Parliament’ and therefore able to participate in human rights abuse by running agents (as they’ve done in Northern Ireland behind the scenes over all the years). You have all these issues and rather than the Church standing up for what I would see as part of its national mission about values, it ends up defending establishment in power, because why change it? I’m saying we change it for the sake of national mission, to help the national discourse on what citizenship should look like for the 21st century. Therefore we bring our moral force to bear on reconceiving the Nation at a major time of change. My comment having heard from a senior civil servant recently who’s involved in a national thinktank at the heart of government envisioning 20 years from now… They’ve been in existence for two years and are about to go semi-public in consultative mode and they are basically anticipating the collapse of the welfare state (a one-third, one-third, one-third scenario – one third over 65, one third underclass and one third middle) because of the collapse of their moral values under materialism not giving a damn about helping the other two thirds. And that’s why government are about to come and start talking to the churches about reconvening the moral conversation about citizenship. My contention is that the Church is wasting its time and missing a beat by not being at the advance of its national mission for the sake of the gospel, by not being at the forefront of these issues of redefining the moral character of citizenship.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: Thank you. There are various things there. The first thing is about national mission. Everybody may aspire to it but not everyone can engage in it. The Church of England for reasons of history has an enormous advantage in conducting a national mission; the Church of Scotland is the same across the border. The question of establishment is not just one at the national level but how it translates into the local - what Martin Percy calls ‘small establishment’. It translates at every level and brings the Church into contact with an enormous number of people of many different kinds. So it’s simply about the capacity for national mission. The question about moral and spiritual values is absolutely right. My own view is that it would be easier to bring these Christian spiritual and moral values to people’s attention if it is linked with where they come from, rather than the Church being out in the front of nowhere. If people since the Industrial Revolution have become increasingly rootless, the very breakdown of family and other structures referred to must mean some kind of re-rooting or repositioning of people in terms of who they are and where they’ve come from. Personally, I’m happy to listen to you. I’ve worked in many parts of the world – as far as England is concerned (and I say ‘England’ advisedly), I think the English genius is not just in this area but generally speaking, evolutionary rather than revolutionary, (though there have been revolutions in England), and of course if the Church finds itself in a new situation where’s there’s been a deconstruction of society, it would have to rethink its mission in those terms. Other churches have done that, like the Roman Catholic Church in France after the French Revolution. But that’s not the most conducive for Christian mission in this area. The recalling of people to their spiritual roots would be the least disruptive. Where the Church’s role in parliament or in relationship to national bodies is concerned, it’s not simply a case of echoing what the government of the day may want or say, it’s quite often challenging on the floor of the House what the Govt is saying. I’ve done it repeatedly myself and have brought upon myself the odium of the whips, whichever government it might be. While one must not overplay the prophetic aspect of this, I think there is a prophetic aspect which a responsible church would exercise. To some extent this is a matter of temperament. The demography point you mention is a very important one and completely politically incorrect to bring to anyone’s attention. It is a time bomb. I brought it to people’s attention some years ago and some people in the media jumped right down my throat. They represent all the reasons why the demography is what it is now. But that requires courage, to say that in parliament, as I was doing only last week. Yes. It’s possible for the constitutional arrangements to evolve in such a way that still make it an option for the people in this country to express their political and social life in terms of the Christian values by which they have been formed.
David Porter: Do you think we’ll be afforded the opportunity to do that? My fear is that in this constitutional no-man’s land around Europe and under the guise of monarchy and very restrictive government, the Church and Christians as well as anyone of faith will increasingly find ourselves through legislation and through the law as being another underclass; which is to be part of the ruling liberal elite you have a naked public square and anybody who feels that any sense of moral or religious values should be brought into the public square will be marginalised. If we are not at the forefront of articulating voices for a proper constitutional debate in this Kingdom we could find ourselves at the end of a process of stealth and nasty pieces of law which make it impossible for anyone of any religion to bring any moral value to bear. That is my concern about the very English genius of understated evolution. It avoids the sharp issues like that.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: I totally agree with that. There is a kind of ruling paradigm already and Oliver O’Donovan will I’m sure say this when he’s here. The rules of discourse are purely formal. You’re not allowed to bring religious values and beliefs to bear in the public arena. And it is right to do so. We were talking earlier about how people are beginning to say in parliament that they are coming at particular pieces of legislation from a Christian point of view. We want to hear this more, a lot more. My experience in the House of Lords is that people will say things without giving reason for it and then in the tearoom they say they said it because they’re a Christian. We have to be up front. Bishops are recognisably so, but it’s the lay people who need to be heard.
Frank Lyall: Can I clarify here? Would you prefer to see within the legislature a protected constituency for religious representation, or would the churches encourage more people to become MPs or Christians who would wear their convictions more openly?
Frank Lyall: Which way would you go?
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: I would go with both. The former question is particularly related to the character of the second chamber. My experience of that chamber is that its value lies in its deliberative, reflective revising role. If you had a purely elected second chamber it would be in danger of replicating the first chamber, which it should not do. What we don’t want is a confrontation between two chambers of parliament that derive their legitimacy in the same way. I think it’s good to have a second chamber that is constituted differently. The mechanics of that are a matter of debate. It should certainly have expertise, a cross-section of opinion and society which a purely elected legislature cannot have. When we had the debate on the war in Iraq for instance, four former Chiefs of the Defence staff spoke. That could never happen in the House of Commons. If you have a debate about higher education, you have about three or four heads of houses or of universities speaking. You wouldn’t have that in the Commons. The value of a second chamber is different from that of the first and in the second chamber if it is a deliberative, reflective, revising chamber, there is a place for representatives of the churches and maybe of other faiths to contribute that dimension of national life. That in no way prevents us from encouraging people to stand for parliament, also to write to Appointments Committees and so forth suggesting that we make peers.
Frank Lyall: So really it would be down to the Appointments Commission to secure people of experience who might not wish to go through an elective process, who should be representative within the second chamber.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: It is vital that something like this happens. This doesn’t exclude the possibility of a portion of that chamber being elected but I think you need other sorts of people as well.
Frank Lyall: What about the relationship question of the Church of England legislative processes and parliament. Should that continue?
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: Certain sorts of Church of England legislation are excluded from the scrutiny of Parliament anyway, to do with the doctrine of the Church and its worship. There are other things that are not which have to do with discipline, government and so forth where the Church of England's legislation itself then has to be approved by both houses of parliament.
Frank Lyall: Why should that be? The deliverances of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland don’t have to have approval and they affect people.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: I understand that. They should continue but only as set out in the 1919 Act to see whether any piece of legislation of the Church of England has an effect on citizens of this country which in any way reduces their liberty, for instance. It’s to safeguard diversity and liberty that that provision was made. It’s sometimes been interpreted to mean that parliament can say anything about such legislation. That’s a question between the Church and Parliament which occurs every time there’s a controversial piece of legislation going through. It is the Church’s duty to point out that the role of Parliament is simply to prevent the liberties of citizens and subjects of the Crown being eroded by anything the Church of England does. I think that’s fair enough if you’re going to have an established church in a plural society.
Frank Lyall: Looking from north of the wall, I really don’t see it as necessary.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: Your spiritual and ecclesial heritage comes from Geneva where there was a theocracy. England never really had that.
Don Horrocks: Can I take you up on your point about law needing coercive and moral force to be accepted? If we apply that to the national situation of the state church where, from a non conformist perspective, the state church is notorious for never being able to respond in a single voice when we see laws being passed which are morally unacceptable. I’ve been personally involved in speaking into legislative situations quite recently and it’s been clear that the bishops have been miles apart on the moral implications of law that’s being introduced into parliament with the effect that there is no clear voice sounded at all. Is that not a case for removing the Church of England from its role as a state church and allowing bishops to speak freely?
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: I think it’s a case for making the Church of England’s voice cohesive! Quite often the Church of England’s submission on a moral issue is not the same as Bishops’ speeches in the House of Lords. Take, for instance, the question about civil partnerships. We have made as a church a submission to government which I think the Evangelical Alliance will like, but that does not guarantee that a particular Bishop speaking at a particular time will reflect that submission. Bishops sit in their own right not as representing anyone. They sit there in right of See. So the Church of England’s submissions on particular matters may not be identical.
Don Horrocks: And the Government exploit that. If they don’t like a particular slant or position then they will bring in a Bishop with a contrary view to support their line. This happened very recently in my own experience and it totally mutes the voice of the Church and gives credence to those who say that it cannot have any effective voice when it matters.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: That does happen sometimes but there are numerous occasions where the Church speaks with one voice. On refugee issues, for instance, millennium development goals recently where the Church has spoken with one voice, so it’s not always the case. It does happen in areas of sexuality particularly at the moment. We have a very divided church and that is reflected in every sphere of its life, including its work in parliament. The settlement which the Church of England received at the Reformation was provided for in such a way as to ensure that the Church never spoke with one voice. The way it was arranged makes me think that.
Don Horrocks: Is that not in itself a good argument for disestablishment?
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: It’s a good argument for the Church of England addressing its lack of cohesion in certain areas. How much cohesion do we want? The Church of England does tolerate a certain diversity and it’s not that we want everyone to speak with the same voice, but I want to develop some notion of legitimate diversity, so there’s some basic allegiance to the Bible, for instance, to apostolic faith as it is transmitted down the centuries, but not identity of expression. In terms of tradition, the Church has a number of traditions but each has its value.
Don Horrocks: Do you think that homosexuality is one of those issues that cannot be allowed to have a widespread interpretation?
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: In terms of sexuality as such, my point of departure is the Bible’s teaching in the Old and New Testaments on marriage. God’s will is shown in creation and in redemption in terms of Christian marriage. This is not to say that marriage has not been abused by Christians but nevertheless that is God’s will for the proper expression of human sexuality. What falls outside it cannot be said to be God’s will in same way. While homosexuality is an aspect of that, it’s not the only one. We have rampant infidelity, serial monogamy, all sorts of things. I saw something called ‘Ménage à trois et plusieurs’ in a government paper. Is the Government now thinking of providing for such associations? All of that falls outside the Bible’s view of marriage which is based on man and woman being made in God’s image, therefore complementary, not just biologically but in all sorts of other ways, which makes for the permanence of union, provides the stability for the family which in turn is a necessity for society. That’s the kind of approach I’d take rather than proof-texting, for instance.
Sharon Hanson: I have two questions concerning establishment in a multi-faith society. There’s an undercurrent coming through that suggests you feel the Church can act as a gateway because of its constitutional position to allow other faiths to participate constitutionally. How would you perceive other faiths using the established position of the Church of England to participate in constitutional processes?
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: It’s not just a gateway question. The first thing is that an established church symbolises a nation’s acknowledgement about the sources of its laws, its institutions and its values. It is an acknowledgement that the State is based on certain things. If people of other faiths are to be engaged in national life then it must be from a particular point of view rather than a melée of what you were talking about. My own experience of people of other faiths is they’re happy for this to be said by the State, that we have come from this Christian basis but we want to involve you and engage you in national life. They’d be more comfortable with that than a vacuum, that the rules are purely formal and there’s no underlying ideology. That’s the first role of an established church in a multifaith society. Secondly, the church has certainly in the past been a gateway in chaplaincy services, civic affairs and even in national life. For example the 1980s debate on the education bill, where the Church made sure that other religions were given a fair slot in terms of religious education when the feeling in Parliament was they should not be. Thirdly, the Church of England’s situation is moving beyond the gateway idea. Other faiths are more confident now about participation. The Church has to find a new way of living with them. I find this in respect of hospitals and prisons – the pressure is to share multifaith chapels. In our diocese the authority either provides a plain room that anyone can use or we have a dedicated area for Christians to use and another area that anyone can use. Those sorts of questions are arising which have moved beyond the gateway idea.
Sharon Hanson: My second question is coming from another position – can you lay out your response to the well-trod argument that to have an established church creates unreasonable privilege in the 21st century and positions Christianity in a discriminatory position in the middle of English law and legal processes.
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali: The popular press has given us the idea that all discrimination must ipso facto be wrong. The State does and should discriminate in some cases e.g. housing for families or key-workers, the upholding of monogamy in law and so on. I’m not alone in saying this: any established church should see its position in terms of service rather than of privilege. The Church of England certainly had privilege in the past. I very much doubt if it has any now in terms of trappings and wealth. If people are given a hearing it’s on the merits of what they say or they are shouted down. If it is believed that in the formation of the political and social life of a people and of the State Christian beliefs have played a formative role, this needs somehow to be expressed. The way in which it has been expressed in this country is in the form of an established church. It may not be where one would start from today. But that is where we are and it is quite possible to use the situation as it is for the benefit both of the State and the Christian faith. That’s the view that I take.
Frank Lyall: Thank you very much for your patience and the clarity of your ideas. I’m sure it will help our thinking.
