Those who do not like the result of state control are free, in modern circumstances, to set up their own denomination. This is a process which happened several times in the established Church of Scotland.
As far as I can see the only thing holding the Anglican Communion together is the unwillingness of the liberal wing to realise that they would be better off without the religious weirdos.
The state doesn't have any input into theology except insofar as the PM appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury from a short list of three which the the CofE submits to him. No doubt Tony Bliar is regretting appointing a (relative) liberal rather than an anglo-Catholic.
In some ways Churches are much more established in - e.g. Germany - where the state collects a proportion of income tax on their behalf.
The CofE used to be ridiculed as "the Tory party at prayer". Nowadays it isn't even that any more. It is more a conduit for middle class professionals to get their children into what they perceive as better (church affiliated) schools. notes from no w here
It's a bit of a pantomime, but it's a very British pantomime. Symbolically it's still extremely important to some of the more relevant castes in British identity politics.
True, the identification of the CofE with solemn state occasions would be lessoned, but many adherents argue that disestablishment would have many benefits, in the sense that it would reduce the identification of the Church with the State and allow more space for those who are very disenchanted with the State or the Government of the day. notes from no w here
And - to a lesser extent - vice versa.
It's not about direct influence, but about the legitimisation of social relationships that are then empowered to influence by the fake pretence of significance and sanctification from both sides.
Disestablishing the CofE would effectively destroy it. It would rapidly fragment into a rump of faithful over-55s, various mutually exclusive packs of psychotic god-bothering nutters, and a property development arm which would have to start selling off land almost immediately.
Currently under the radar but potentially far more worrying in the UK are 'prosperity churches' preaching an exciting and dynamic gospel of you-can-have-it-all capitalist indulgence sanctified by a bit of bible quoting and charismatic preaching. (Same old trick, new remix.)
There are quite a few here now. They're as rock-star flashy as their US counterparts, which makes them seem much more glamorous and accessible than the post-menopausal and rather comical CofE.
But they're infinitely more corrosive socially. And some of them have discovered that TV is fairly cheap, and an ideal recruiting medium, so their influence is only going to grow.
10-20 years from now we're going to have our own home grown tele-fundies and megachurches. And that's not going to be fun or pretty - for gays, for women, or for anyone who disagrees with them.
One of their services was even televised by the BBC on a Sunday morning a few months back. I don't know how I came across it, but I sat there for the whole hour, fascinated (and trying to spot people I know, but there weren't any. Which is kind of weird in a city this size. The last time the BBC's Question Time was here, I recognised a third of the questioners.)
I think it was very good at selling inclusion, or at least the outward appearance of it. That's not something the C of E has done terribly well, historically. You would indeed need the help of God if you Sat In Somebody's Pew when I was growing up.
Shall we go sometime? I Have a Theory and I'd quite like to check it.
(I suspect the name is a pun on Peterborough's real Sunday worship: the Queensgate shopping centre.)
Sure we can go. But I warn you, the only way I can keep a straight face is by singing enthusiastically.
I've a sneaking, guilty fondness for traditional Anglican hymns, with their whiff of old hassocks, school assembly and Empire. But putting a son through Scouts has sent me to church often enough in the past few years to get an idea of the current hymnal. I remember once seeing a CD of them advertised while flicking past a God channel, and taking some convincing I hadn't happened on a spoof.
On the upside, it doesn't matter if you can't sing or don't know the tune, because it can't get any worse.
All together now...My God is an awesome God...
No new posts on the forums since last summer.
Are they still going, or have they been bought by Ikea?
They didn't have those at Trentham Parish, I can tell you.
OMG. It's gone happy clappy. Wonder if you can now choose where to sit without a detailed map. Or if it's any less embarrassing to whack the rood screen with a Girl Guide flag.
It's 172MB and takes half an hour to download.
But it's hard not to like a church that asks questions like 'What are we like' without irony. (Or question marks.)
The point of the current system is that the state and the church legitimise each other.
The contrary argument is that they now de-legitimise each other more than vice versa. The Church makes the state look sectarian and not inclusive of the racial/religious diversity that is "modern Britain", and the close association with the State makes the Church unattractive to the majority of the young who are alienated from, or at least disinterested in, anything to do with the state. (It also makes the Church unattractive to the fundies who disapprove of Labour equality policy etc.)
Where I do agree is that if the official CofE imploded, it would more likely than not be replaced by a plethora of even nuttier sects and Churches. Those who are most critical of the establishment churches are often even more credulous when it comes to the nuttier varieties of same. notes from no w here
So they're already beyond reach.
It isn't seriously interested in inclusiveness, either. (Clearly.)
The legitimisation is entirely ritualistic. The CofE is really one of the last remaining links and relics of the Empire. Losing it would mean a final admission that the days of empire and immense significance are over - at least among the Westminster, shires and Belgravia set who care about these things.
The oiks elsewhere are hardly relevant in this, even though they happen to form a popular majority.
The CofE hasn't been seriously interested in young people - unless they're in a very narrow band of middle-class youngness - for at least fifty years now.
From memory, I'd underline "at least".
I also agree that disestablishment would be the end of the CofE. The strands of Low Church Evangelicalism, Middle Church stodgy conventionalism, and High Church Anglo-Catholicism (to simplify) have only held together over so many years thanks to the snob-appeal tradition of the ancient established Church. A few Evangelicals might peel off towards Nonconformist Evangelical denominations (but mind the steps, you're going down the class stairs rather fast), and a few spikies might turn RC (no social decline there), but by and large Anglicans hold on for prestige reasons. A disestablished CofE in which each local church would gain autonomy, would pretty soon lead to a break-up.
Are those who don't believe so really religious? Or delusional in another way? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The latter views the Church more as a journey through history than as a final destination and acknowledges past mistakes on slavery, fascism, anti-semitism, Apartheid, segreation etc. It is interesting to note that these "errors" can all be attributed to viewing your community as somehow morally superior and the "out-group" - be they blacks, Jews, Communists, Women, Gays etc.- as somehow evil or inferior and thus deserving of a worse fate as God's punishment for that inderiority or sin.
There seems to be a deep human need (perhaps historically or religiously created or reinforced) to define Good and Evil, to identify yourself as belonging to the good, and some suitable outgroup as embodying the evil. Success or empowerment is then deemed a reward for virtue, and the weakness of others justified by their sin.
This paradigm lends itself to warlike, polarising, adversarial forms of politics. It's a great way to rationalise gross inequalities, exploitation and oppression.
It's interesting to note that this Good/Evil polarisation and labelling of the other as evil is not characteristic of Buddhism or some of the more metaphysical forms of Islam or Christianity. Indeed Jesus' intervention in Jewish tradition can be read as an attempt to end the Good/Evil : Insider/Outsider : Jew/Gentile duality of that tradition.
The common characteristic of sects is their need to develop very clear boundaries with non members on the basis that non-members cannot be "saved" without their special knowledge or virtue. Hence the strong trend towards a mystification of history, the natural world and current reality. Thus Evolution, tectonic plate theory, and climate change must all be opposed because they challenge the Good/Evil polarity as the driving force of history. They effect that Good and evil equally, and thus cannot be used as a basis for in-group, out-group differentiation.
. notes from no w here
Indeed Jesus' intervention in Jewish tradition can be read as an attempt to end the Good/Evil : Insider/Outsider : Jew/Gentile duality of that tradition.
AFAIK, the conventional wisdom among religious historians is that this is a post-hoc rationalisation born of the fact that Paul went and converted a whole empire full of Gentiles to the sect.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Or that he simply broke with the original doctrine over it, because he wanted to go and convert Gentiles, and the original doctrine faded into obscurity because limiting yourself to proselytising to a small and already devout group of monotheists is not really a smart way to increase market share.
The earliest texts of the New Testament (before the Gospels) are considered to be by Paul - certainly the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, and possibly even earlier, Galatians. This is the late '40s, early '50s. Jesus is held to have died in 33 (give or take a few years). The set of beliefs around JC's divinity and sacrifice for the sins of mankind grew very fast. Paul had a major hand in shaping them.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
This is one of the earliest statements of Christian doctrine (again, written before the Gospels), and it's a declaration of the universality of Christianity. It goes considerably further than the Jew/Gentile question, since it includes slave/free and man/woman. I don't know whether Paul came up with it just because he wanted to evangelize Gentiles, or because he had a sharp eye on the marketing - but quite possibly he was consumed with passion for the revolutionary belief expressed there, and he was not alone in holding it, as early as AD 50.
My point being that the post-hoc rationalisation idea doesn't correspond to history; the earliest known statements of Christian doctrine are in fact universalist.
Personally I would recognise that the state church should minimise its religious content and fill posts on the basis of purely political patronage, but I suppose disestablishment would bee a better option.
I always thought I would quite like to be a priest, if only belief in religion was not required.
