|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Church and Parliament
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
"If the Church of England wishes to be a national church, reflecting the nation, then it has to reflect the nation."
So said Tony Baldry MP on an issues that has been discussed leasewhere on these boards:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/22/justin-welby-female-bishops-mps
Is having a "national church" that "reflects the nation" a good thing? Can a church that is too closely tied to the establishemnt/the governemnt also proclaim the gospel?
Does the position of the Roman Catholic church in China (for instance) shed any light on this? If so, does the government have to consider itself "Christian" for an established church to work (as the English Parliamnent certainly did when the C of E broke from Rome)?
Discuss!
P.S. Posts may only mention the women bishop issue as illustration, not be statements or rants for/against a certain recent decision of a certain synod (otherwise this would be a "Dead horse" topic)
[ETA Title changed for spelling,DT, Purgatory Host]
[ 24. November 2012, 23:16: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Like I said in Dead Horses, the Church of England should stop being a Christian institution and instead adopt the tenets of the Cult of the Supreme Being.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
By "national" church does the MP mean an established church? Because (and I am speaking from an American perspective) disesablishment ain't so bad.
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
There hasn't been a day in the last five hundred years that wouldn't have dawned better if the Church of England had been disestablished the night before. Even better if the House of Lords went as well.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Church in Wales, part of the Anglican communion, has been disestablished since the 1920s and the sky hasn't fallen in.
I can see a role for a 'national church' and have no issue at all with the CofE's prominence in national events such as royal weddings and funerals, the Remembrance Day services and so on.
But the dear ol' CofE has always been rather too Erastian for its own good.
There's a balance - he said in a fuzzy Anglican way. I don't think disestablishment is a bad thing ... but then I'm not sure I like what I see of a full-on, market-forces style religious free-for-all in the deregulated US sense either. But the genii has long been out of the bottle on that one.
I won't name any names but I was aghast recently to hear about the sharp practices perpetrated by an outfit I know of over here which has adopted a more US-style modus-operandi.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
As far the OP is concerned I'm with Leo - the church aspires to change culture rather than reflect it.
Niall Feeguson,, in his excellent book Civilisation, argues that the lack of an established church in the States is one of the reasons that it hasn't experinced the same decline in Christian belief and practice that we have experinced in the UK. He points to the high numbers of different churches, and the elemen of competition between them for the souls of their local communities.
It's an interesting idea.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
Just mentioning the two dead horses in passing, and not stopping to examine them:
I think if the national church requires an opt out from discrimination law, and will soon want to opt out of solemnising certain legal marriages, that church has already ceased to be the national church and is simply another one crying in the wilderness.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
A national church that simply reflects the opinions of the prevailing culture doesn't really have much to say in the end.
But a national church like the C of E needs to be able to speak effectively to the society. That means that where it differs from prevailing morality, it needs to be sure that the view it espouses will be seen as different and better than the norm. People may choose to reject its position as being hopelessly idealistic or too hard, but at least they will acknowledge that there is a genuine moral position being put forward. But if the church's position is seen as being hopelessly outdated and morally degenerate, then it has no voice on anything.
A national church should be clearly pointing towards what is better, purer and higher. Sadly, the C of E is not in that position at the moment.
I would say the C of E can still easily "speak the gospel" - as long as it starts to understand what that gospel really is. Anything that perpetuates discrimination, inequality and injustice will not be heard as "the gospel". And no amount of shouting that "This is what the Bible says" is going to change that. All that will do is confirm the view that the Bible is an irrelevant and even dangerous document, much like attitudes towards fundamentalist Muslim beliefs about the Qu'ran.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Just mentioning the two dead horses in passing, and not stopping to examine them:
I think if the national church requires an opt out from discrimination law, and will soon want to opt out of solemnising certain legal marriages, that church has already ceased to be the national church and is simply another one crying in the wilderness.
On this basis, what the church believes and practices will constantly be redefined by the prevailing mood in society. Who's to say that society's views on same sex marriages won't reverse within the next 20years? As I remember it, the voices crying in the wilderness (Isaiah and the Baptist) heralded fundamental national and international change.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
A national church that simply reflects the opinions of the prevailing culture doesn't really have much to say in the end.
But a national church like the C of E needs to be able to speak effectively to the society. That means that where it differs from prevailing morality, it needs to be sure that the view it espouses will be seen as different and better than the norm. People may choose to reject its position as being hopelessly idealistic or too hard, but at least they will acknowledge that there is a genuine moral position being put forward. But if the church's position is seen as being hopelessly outdated and morally degenerate, then it has no voice on anything.
A national church should be clearly pointing towards what is better, purer and higher. Sadly, the C of E is not in that position at the moment.
I would say the C of E can still easily "speak the gospel" - as long as it starts to understand what that gospel really is. Anything that perpetuates discrimination, inequality and injustice will not be heard as "the gospel". And no amount of shouting that "This is what the Bible says" is going to change that. All that will do is confirm the view that the Bible is an irrelevant and even dangerous document, much like attitudes towards fundamentalist Muslim beliefs about the Qu'ran.
This, this, this.
Christians should have been, and often were, vocal in their support for sexual equality legislation. It's somewhere between irony and absolutely barking that it's churches who need an opt out from that very legislation.
Does anyone not imagine that that might just look a little like hypocrisy to some observers?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Just mentioning the two dead horses in passing, and not stopping to examine them:
I think if the national church requires an opt out from discrimination law, and will soon want to opt out of solemnising certain legal marriages, that church has already ceased to be the national church and is simply another one crying in the wilderness.
On this basis, what the church believes and practices will constantly be redefined by the prevailing mood in society. Who's to say that society's views on same sex marriages won't reverse within the next 20years? As I remember it, the voices crying in the wilderness (Isaiah and the Baptist) heralded fundamental national and international change.
If they do, then the church can be where it bleedin' well should be, decrying the rise of prejudice and homophobia behind such a societal move. And hopefully once again herald fundamental national and international change rather than lagging behind moves in the direction of justice and equality.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
The argument for a proper laity franchise has been around for a long time. An electorate of all ER members is the only rational way of doing it.
Deanery Synods are variously composed of people who didn't put their hands down quickly enough at the AGM, people who want to get on the PCC by the back door, people who were arm-twisted by the vicar, geeks, people who genuinely believe in Synodical Govt, and large numbers from churches with big electoral rolls and can therefore vote their own kind in. [Though those complaining about the vote need to remember that in 1992, that same unrepresentative House of Laity delivered women priests]
It is of course a bit rich for a Tory Government elected as a minority with supine LibDem support to talk about popular mandates. None the less, the CofE does look stupid on this, and it needs fixing.
The special majority provision has been in the CofE constitution and standing orders since the 1969 Synodical Government Measure - partly at the insistence of Government that we should protect minorities...
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It shouldn't 'reflect the nation'. It should reflect Jesus Christ. It should 'be there' for nation.
Like wot Leo says.
All I'd add is:-
a. Establishment is bad for the church but good for the nation. It's obviously better that princes and politicians should have some reminder that they are answerable to God, than none.
b. Once one has establishment, wouldn't disestablishment be de facto formal national apostasy, with all the spiritual implications that would carry? That wasn't the case in Wales in 1920 and Ireland in 1871. Those were deciding between one form of Christianity and another. But in the context of modern England, disestablishment would be deciding between Christian faith and no Christian faith.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It shouldn't 'reflect the nation'. It should reflect Jesus Christ. It should 'be there' for nation.
Like wot Leo says.
All I'd add is:-
a. Establishment is bad for the church but good for the nation. It's obviously better that princes and politicians should have some reminder that they are answerable to God, than none.
b. Once one has establishment, wouldn't disestablishment be de facto formal national apostasy, with all the spiritual implications that would carry? That wasn't the case in Wales in 1920 and Ireland in 1871. Those were deciding between one form of Christianity and another. But in the context of modern England, disestablishment would be deciding between Christian faith and no Christian faith.
Isn't that an admission that the Established Church is responsible for the de facto unbelief of the nation?
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Just mentioning the two dead horses in passing, and not stopping to examine them:
I think if the national church requires an opt out from discrimination law, and will soon want to opt out of solemnising certain legal marriages, that church has already ceased to be the national church and is simply another one crying in the wilderness.
On this basis, what the church believes and practices will constantly be redefined by the prevailing mood in society. Who's to say that society's views on same sex marriages won't reverse within the next 20years? As I remember it, the voices crying in the wilderness (Isaiah and the Baptist) heralded fundamental national and international change.
Not so. The moods of society should constantly be redefined by the developing theology of the church that leads it. Unless the church can be in that leading position, rather than a following position, then it cannot claim the position of established church, and must take its turn with all the other offers in the market.
I'm not saying that would be a bad thing, and yes, that was a deliberate reference to Isaiah. The church probably should cry out in the wilderness rather than climbing into bed with the state.
[ 24. November 2012, 11:48: Message edited by: Hairy Biker ]
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
"If the Church of England wishes to be a national church, reflecting the nation, then it has to reflect the nation."
So said Tony Baldry MP
Firstly I don't think that the role of the national church is to reflect the nation.
It is the role of the elected house in parliament, the House of Commons, to reflect the nation, no one else's. The role of the church in parliament is to provide a moral leadership, to check of the morals of legislation as it goes through parliament. It should not so much reflecting as challenging the nation.
That there have been times when Archbishops of Canterbury have openly disagreed with government policy, which shows that the church is politically doing its job.
When the church starts doing the bidding of the Commons it will be time to disestablish. As long as there is a tension it is doing a good job where it is. We have Law Lords and Lords Spiritual in our second chamber in order that the Prime Minister/Cabinet cannot say, "It's legal because I/we say it is," or, "It's moral because I/we say it is."
What Baldry is missing is that the CofE HAS decided to have women bishops. Tuesday's vote was about how to include those in the church who do not agree with, or are uneasy with this decision.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Just mentioning the two dead horses in passing, and not stopping to examine them:
I think if the national church requires an opt out from discrimination law, and will soon want to opt out of solemnising certain legal marriages, that church has already ceased to be the national church and is simply another one crying in the wilderness.
On this basis, what the church believes and practices will constantly be redefined by the prevailing mood in society. Who's to say that society's views on same sex marriages won't reverse within the next 20years? As I remember it, the voices crying in the wilderness (Isaiah and the Baptist) heralded fundamental national and international change.
Not so. The moods of society should constantly be redefined by the developing theology of the church that leads it. Unless the church can be in that leading position, rather than a following position, then it cannot claim the position of established church, and must take its turn with all the other offers in the market.
I'm not saying that would be a bad thing, and yes, that was a deliberate reference to Isaiah. The church probably should cry out in the wilderness rather than climbing into bed with the state.
Not sure I'm following this. I'm with you on the notion of church leading society, but then you seem to be saying that if society is going in a different direction from the church, then the church should catch up. Shouldn't it rather stick to its guns and seek to convince society to turn around?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
One actually wonders whether, as the Church predates the nation, the monarch and Parliament and has been instrumental in forming all three - and indeed still does (after all, it is the Church that crowns the Monarch and the ABofC takes precedence over the Prime Minister) - should not the nation and government not actually reflect the national church?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If the church were to be disestablished, who would get to choose who does the coronation?
I notice from this article that over the last decades a mixture of RC, Episcopalian, Orthodox and Jewish ministers have led prayers but in some notable cases the religious participants have all been southern baptists - including Clintons!
I don't know who chooses these people, but are we looking at one day a soon-to-be-crowned King saying, oooh, let's get the Sally Army to do it this time round? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 24. November 2012, 13:24: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Woops, in my editing I deleted the words US Presidential Inauguration - I think you know what I meant ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It is of course a bit rich for a Tory Government elected as a minority with supine LibDem support to talk about popular mandates. None the less, the CofE does look stupid on this, and it needs fixing.
I'm sorry but I can't let that go. I don't want to derail the thread, and I am aware that the Ship has a distinct list to port, but I do need to comment on your post.
Apart from it being bad manners to introduce a partisan political point into the thread, I think you have also been a little disingenuous.
It was, after all, the General Synod under a Conservative Government in 1992 that instituted women priests, and that from 1997 to 2010, there were 3 General Synods under a Labour Government that did absolutely nothing about women bishops, and - for the majority of that time - with a Prime Minister who was a committed Christian!
If you want to discuss politics, then by all means, but in a separate thread please, not this one.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Walsingham Tilde
Apprentice
# 17311
|
Posted
Whether or not disestablishment is a good thing, someone who knows more about these things than I do once told me that it wd entail the equivalent of whole year's parliamentary work to bring it about. So, in the secular scheme of things, there's fat chance of it happening!
Posts: 4 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Just mentioning the two dead horses in passing, and not stopping to examine them:
I think if the national church requires an opt out from discrimination law, and will soon want to opt out of solemnising certain legal marriages, that church has already ceased to be the national church and is simply another one crying in the wilderness.
On this basis, what the church believes and practices will constantly be redefined by the prevailing mood in society. Who's to say that society's views on same sex marriages won't reverse within the next 20years? As I remember it, the voices crying in the wilderness (Isaiah and the Baptist) heralded fundamental national and international change.
Ramarius, you are trying to make this far more complicated than it needs to be. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
If the Church of England favors doing what I want and parliament does not, the Church of England must speak truth to power and shame parliament into doing what I want. On the other hand, if parliament favors doing what I want and the Church of England does not, then parliament should force the Church of England to do what I want. Now, should neither parliament nor the Church of England favor doing what I want, then I'm forced to be a voice crying in the wilderness about the apostasy of the church and the corruption of government or have a conniption over the evils of Christian Dominionism.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church were to be disestablished, who would get to choose who does the coronation?
I notice from this article [on US Presidential Inauguration] that over the last decades a mixture of RC, Episcopalian, Orthodox and Jewish ministers have led prayers but in some notable cases the religious participants have all been southern baptists - including Clintons!
I don't know who chooses these people, but are we looking at one day a soon-to-be-crowned King saying, oooh, let's get the Sally Army to do it this time round?
The president to be and his advisers. The diversity has decreased over the years (after an initial increasing numbers) and there hasn't been a non-Protestant since Reagan's second. It should be interesting to see who Obama chooses (and who accepts) this time given the partisanship shown by some denominational hierarchies. Choosing one who is not Protestant would be a welcome change. As would be choosing a woman for the first time.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Walsingham Tilde
But it doesn't have to be done full-time over a year, does it? Perhaps the time could be allocated over a period of ten years.
The goal could be to have something in place for when Queen Elizabeth passes away, because that'll represent the end of an era. I realise that it might be inappropriate to have these discussions publicly while she's still alive, but I hope there are parliamentarians and religious and political leaders who are thrashing out the options in private.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If you want to discuss politics, then by all means, but in a separate thread please, not this one.
The topic of this thread is "The Church and Parliament". How on earth could anyone discuss that without mentioning politics? It would be like talking about plumbing without mentioning water.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church were to be disestablished, who would get to choose who does the coronation?
I notice from this article [on US Presidential Inauguration] that over the last decades a mixture of RC, Episcopalian, Orthodox and Jewish ministers have led prayers but in some notable cases the religious participants have all been southern baptists - including Clintons!
I don't know who chooses these people, but are we looking at one day a soon-to-be-crowned King saying, oooh, let's get the Sally Army to do it this time round?
The president to be and his advisers. The diversity has decreased over the years (after an initial increasing numbers) and there hasn't been a non-Protestant since Reagan's second. It should be interesting to see who Obama chooses (and who accepts) this time given the partisanship shown by some denominational hierarchies. Choosing one who is not Protestant would be a welcome change. As would be choosing a woman for the first time.
I'd like to see him choose Bishop Vashti Mckenzie of the AME Church.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If you want to discuss politics, then by all means, but in a separate thread please, not this one.
The topic of this thread is "The Church and Parliament". How on earth could anyone discuss that without mentioning politics? It would be like talking about plumbing without mentioning water.
But the post to which I responded didn't offer anything other than an attack on the coalition parties, not on their response to the synod vote, but purely on the mandates. It was partisan and not related to the thread subject, except in a very tangential way.
This really ought to be quite a non-partisan discussion given that all the main parties agree that the synod vote was wrong and women should be ordained as bishops. To my mind the debate should be more about using parliamentary procedure to see if the issue can be solved that way, such as a private members bill.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
But the death of the Queen is not the end of an era at all - it's the death of a particular Queen but there is no break in the Monarchy, no 'pause' in the crown. As soon as the Queen takes her final breath, Charles is King - 'The King is dead, long live the King, as they say.'
You can only do what you suggest whilst Charles is the King and what you will do then is to strip him of his titles whilst he is on the throne.
I can't see that happening.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You don't get to control the discussion though. If you are sufficiently upset with Ken, you can always call him to hell.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But the death of the Queen is not the end of an era at all - it's the death of a particular Queen but there is no break in the Monarchy, no 'pause' in the crown. As soon as the Queen takes her final breath, Charles is King - 'The King is dead, long live the King, as they say.'
You can only do what you suggest whilst Charles is the King and what you will do then is to strip him of his titles whilst he is on the throne.
I can't see that happening.
Charles has said he doesn't particularly want to be 'Defender of the Faith', which is one reason why it might be reasonable time to come up with a new arrangement.
And sooner or later, it's going to seem problematic to have a state church that doesn't have the allegiance of the majority of the population, especially when a greater number of actively religious people are committed to institutions other than the state church. It seems reasonable to me to anticipate and address this situation rather than ignoring it.
The Swedish Lutheran Church was recently disestablished, so I understand. There is still a monarchy in Sweden. I haven't heard of any great fuss around disestablishment there, though I'm sure it gave rise to much debate. I'd be very interested to know how it all happened.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But the death of the Queen is not the end of an era at all - it's the death of a particular Queen but there is no break in the Monarchy, no 'pause' in the crown. As soon as the Queen takes her final breath, Charles is King - 'The King is dead, long live the King, as they say.'
You can only do what you suggest whilst Charles is the King and what you will do then is to strip him of his titles whilst he is on the throne.
I can't see that happening.
Charles has said he doesn't particularly want to be 'Defender of the Faith', which is one reason why it might be reasonable time to come up with a new arrangement.
Oh good, an argument based yet again on a misquote.
Charles, well-known for his respect of religions other than his own (he is a convinced Anglican) actually said that he wanted to be defender of Faith.
This doesn't mean that he wants to renege on his duties as the defender of Christian faith but that he also wants to see all expressions of faith honoured and defended against attack.
To do that, however, does not mean leaving your own faith. I would defend a Muslim who was persecuted for his beliefs but that would not stop me from proclaiming the truth of my own Christian faith.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But the death of the Queen is not the end of an era at all - it's the death of a particular Queen but there is no break in the Monarchy, no 'pause' in the crown. As soon as the Queen takes her final breath, Charles is King - 'The King is dead, long live the King, as they say.'
You can only do what you suggest whilst Charles is the King and what you will do then is to strip him of his titles whilst he is on the throne.
I can't see that happening.
Hmm - interesting question. The Privy Council meets to complete the legalities of the new reign, and it's possible certain items in his claim could get 'lost' then, although what the law requires could make this 'interesting'.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If you want to discuss politics, then by all means, but in a separate thread please, not this one.
The topic of this thread is "The Church and Parliament". How on earth could anyone discuss that without mentioning politics? It would be like talking about plumbing without mentioning water.
But the post to which I responded didn't offer anything other than an attack on the coalition parties, not on their response to the synod vote, but purely on the mandates. It was partisan and not related to the thread subject, except in a very tangential way.
This really ought to be quite a non-partisan discussion given that all the main parties agree that the synod vote was wrong and women should be ordained as bishops. To my mind the debate should be more about using parliamentary procedure to see if the issue can be solved that way, such as a private members bill.
In your dreams you can keep politics out of this. Though the point I was making was that the CofE is being slagged off by Maria Miller and asked to fix the matter of women bishops (quoted here) and lecturing us about popular mandates when very few Governments over the past 20 years have ever had a popular mandate - and this one particularly hasn't. Now, I happen to think that a 70% plus overall vote in GS for women bishops is a bit more credible than most Govt majorities. It just wasn't enough by our rules of 3 Houses.
If you watch the debate on the emergency question, the House of Commons is united in its desire to see the WB issue fixed (and I agree with them), but they also tend to foam at the mouth a bit more than they are entitled to (mostly out of frustration that they can't do much about how the CofE governs itself).
And no, I don't think the Tory coalition has any kind of popular mandate.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church were to be disestablished, who would get to choose who does the coronation?
Well that could be settled by a bit more modernisation of our institutions... Why stop at the church?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And no, I don't think the Tory coalition has any kind of popular mandate.
Tangent alter - but it's an important one
Government by two parties who between them had a clear margin of over 50% of the vote is a better mandate than any other administration in my lifetime.
True, there's the question what they've got a mandate for. I'd say, it's a mandate to get on with the day to day business of government but it's not a mandate to impose their pet party nostra on us. I'll go along with that as better than any of the other options.
There's certainly no alternative mandate for anything else. The other lot haven't got one either.
End of tangent alert - but it was still important
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But the death of the Queen is not the end of an era at all - it's the death of a particular Queen but there is no break in the Monarchy, no 'pause' in the crown. As soon as the Queen takes her final breath, Charles is King - 'The King is dead, long live the King, as they say.'
You can only do what you suggest whilst Charles is the King and what you will do then is to strip him of his titles whilst he is on the throne.
I can't see that happening.
Charles has said he doesn't particularly want to be 'Defender of the Faith', which is one reason why it might be reasonable time to come up with a new arrangement.
Oh good, an argument based yet again on a misquote.
Charles, well-known for his respect of religions other than his own (he is a convinced Anglican) actually said that he wanted to be defender of Faith.
This doesn't mean that he wants to renege on his duties as the defender of Christian faith but that he also wants to see all expressions of faith honoured and defended against attack.
To do that, however, does not mean leaving your own faith. I would defend a Muslim who was persecuted for his beliefs but that would not stop me from proclaiming the truth of my own Christian faith.
Yes, I'm aware that he said he wanted to be 'Defender of Faith'. The missing 'the' seems to represent a challenge, though.
Maybe you understood what Charles was getting at better than I do, but the impression I had was that he feels more at home in a broadly theistic/spiritual context than a specifically Christian one. Maybe Anglicanism can deal with that, theoretically, but the vibe being broadcast to the world these days is that the CofE finds it increasing difficult to negotiate internal, let alone external diversity.
How can Anglicans stand up for Muslims when they don't even seem to get on with other Anglicans very well?
Maybe there's a way to avoid disestablishment, but at the very least, the CofE needs some serious time out for some reconfiguration and some big group hugs!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I'd like to see him choose Bishop Vashti Mckenzie of the AME Church.
Oddly enough I was thinking the same. I suspect people like Peter Morales or Katherine Jefferts Schori would be too controversial. As possibly Joan Chittister or Marlene Weisenbeck. But then just about anyone (or even choosing no one) would be controversial.
One advantage of an established church is that the office performs the state functions not the person. It is perhaps why no president until Franklin Roosevelt (second term) had any invocation or benediction.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18778655
Clearly the issue of the state-controlled church in China is a very different one to the C-of-E and the British parliament, but I wonder if looking elsewhere in the world gives us a wider vision of this issue.
The Chinese government would not in any shape or form claim to be Christian. Would the House of Commons? I suspect not. If it does not however, should it have any right to intervene in church issues?
Clearly this is an issue that history has bequeathed to us; I suspect no-one would plan for things to be as they are now.
But nonetheless we have a situation where parliament wants to intervene, whether you agree with what they are saying or not, in the way the church runs itself.
History also shows us how badly the church (the C of E or others) can deal with people it disagrees with.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
The Chinese government would not in any shape or form claim to be Christian. Would the House of Commons? I suspect not. If it does not however, should it have any right to intervene in church issues?
I don't know about "claim" to be Christian, but each day's proceeding in Parliament begin with prayers (how Christian or even CofE these are I can't say), and each MP arriving in the House of Commons at the start of each Parliament swear an oathof alegiance to the sovereign, which can either be an affirmation or "to God" as it were.
Individual MP's get to select their stance on religion, but the tradition of Parliament does seem wedded to Christianity in the main, but also I suspect also biased towards the established church.
I also believe the Prime Minister is involved in the selection process for CofE Bishops.
It would seem that there is a definite connection between Parliament, the offices of state and the established church. You may or may not see that as a good thing (I do, but that's me), but I'm not sure that the comparison with the Chinese Government is valid.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, I'm aware that he said he wanted to be 'Defender of Faith'. The missing 'the' seems to represent a challenge, though.
I don't see why it should be. The title bestowed on Henry VIII by the pope was Latin: Fidei defensor. Latin doesn't have articles, definite or indefinite, so the tag can mean Defender of the Faith, Defender of a Faith or Defender of Faith. And if people get hung up on the "the" it can be pointed out the monarch hasn't been defending the faith which got them the title for the last 480 years.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It was, after all, the General Synod under a Conservative Government in 1992 that instituted women priests, and that from 1997 to 2010, there were 3 General Synods under a Labour Government that did absolutely nothing about women bishops, and - for the majority of that time - with a Prime Minister who was a committed Christian!
But isn't this just evidence that de facto disestablishment has been gradually increasing, so that a secular government would not think of interfering in the internal life of the church?
In my tidy-minded moments (it's easier having a tidy mind than a tidy study) I wish we could finish off the process quickly and cut our establishment ties once and for all. But realistically it ain't going to happen, mainly because politicians have got other things to worry about.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
When the church starts doing the bidding of the Commons it will be time to disestablish.
That'll be some time before the Wars of the Roses then.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, I'm aware that he said he wanted to be 'Defender of Faith'. The missing 'the' seems to represent a challenge, though.
I don't see why it should be. The title bestowed on Henry VIII by the pope was Latin: Fidei defensor. Latin doesn't have articles, definite or indefinite, so the tag can mean Defender of the Faith, Defender of a Faith or Defender of Faith. And if people get hung up on the "the" it can be pointed out the monarch hasn't been defending the faith which got them the title for the last 480 years.
What you seem to be saying is that the term is somewhat devoid of meaning, or perhaps that it means whatever we want it to mean at any given point, which is more or less the same thing....
The implication is that the CofE is rather like a placeholder in algebra. In a highly secularised society like ours, having an established church ensures that faith can't be entirely banished from the public sphere. It's not the religious or doctrinal content that matters, nor even the degree of 'standing up for' Muslims/Pentecostals/Wiccans/etc., but simply maintaining a space for something indefinably 'spiritual'.
This isn't the image that the CofE projects to the wider nation, though. Ecumenical Nonconformists (like myself) might have good relations with local CofE congregation(s), but I suggest that the public at large mostly sees a church that's preoccupied with its own internal issues, or else a church that generates a lot of hot air on topics on which the general public has already made up its mind. This may be unfair, but the CofE doesn't seem to be in a position at the moment to change perceptions.
Angloid
In terms of parliamentarians not having time to discuss disestablishment, maybe they should be given a bit of help: a team of knowledgeable volunteers and intellectuals could come together for several years to do research on the ways in which this might be achieved. In other words, we could do this work on behalf of the parliamentarians. A report could be delivered to Parliament exploring all the possible challenges and ramifications that would be involved. This would surely cut down on the workload for our politicians.
[ 27. November 2012, 14:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, I'm aware that he said he wanted to be 'Defender of Faith'. The missing 'the' seems to represent a challenge, though.
I don't see why it should be. The title bestowed on Henry VIII by the pope was Latin: Fidei defensor. Latin doesn't have articles, definite or indefinite, so the tag can mean Defender of the Faith, Defender of a Faith or Defender of Faith. And if people get hung up on the "the" it can be pointed out the monarch hasn't been defending the faith which got them the title for the last 480 years.
Unless I am much mistaken, however, the title bestowed upon Henry by Parliament twenty-odd years later was "Defender of the Faith" (in English).
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
As far the OP is concerned I'm with Leo - the church aspires to change culture rather than reflect it.
Niall Feeguson,, in his excellent book Civilisation, argues that the lack of an established church in the States is one of the reasons that it hasn't experinced the same decline in Christian belief and practice that we have experinced in the UK. He points to the high numbers of different churches, and the elemen of competition between them for the souls of their local communities ....
But that's wrong about churches in the USA. All the mainline protestant churches have experienced steep declines in membership, attendance and financial support. Only the Roman Catholics and Protrestant independent mega-churches (big-box and sort of Evangelical) show growth.
The Roman Catholics show growth because of immigration. The mega-big boxes are more entertainment for the crowds than real church.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church were to be disestablished, who would get to choose who does the coronation?
I notice from this article that over the last decades a mixture of RC, Episcopalian, Orthodox and Jewish ministers have led prayers but in some notable cases the religious participants have all been southern baptists - including Clintons!
I don't know who chooses these people, but are we looking at one day a soon-to-be-crowned King saying, oooh, let's get the Sally Army to do it this time round?
Sorry, but you've rationalized this point into silliness. When all of the presidents you've mentioned have been inaugurated, all of them with their families, cabinet appointees, friends and well wishers, go up to Washington National Cathedral for a festive service of thanksgiving and prayer for the new president and administration.
Washington Cathedral is also the seat of the Episcopal bishop of Washington, but it has always presented itself as A House of Prayer for All People: A true spiritual home for the nation that has no established church. However 'as eny fule noe' Anglicans (Episcopalians) have built the best buildings, have the best music and can do religious ceremonial for civic occasions hands down better than anyone else. That's one of two big reasons why Washington Cathedral was built in the first place. The other was, of course, to be cathedral for the Episcopal bishop of Washington, and now also for the presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church, USA..
Here is a webcast video of the
Jan 2009 Obama Inaugration Service at Washington Cathedral.
Surely, Westminster Abbey, whatever it's religious affiliated "denomination," established or disestablished, fulfills that same role by history and tradition for Great Britain as does Washington Cathedral in the USA. I don't think disestablishment of the Church of England necessarily means that the Salvation Army or the Pentecostals would crown the sovereign.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
They wouldn't know how to do it anyway.They don't own appropriate buildings, all the gear and experience needed for such an even. They surely would have to call on Anglican expertise to help, tell them what to do, or most probably take over the job. Let's face it, the Baptists, for instance, don't know how to do coronations.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[qb]
They wouldn't know how to do it anyway.They don't own appropriate buildings, all the gear and experience needed for such an even. They surely would have to call on Anglican expertise to help, tell them what to do, or most probably take over the job. Let's face it, the Baptists, for instance, don't know how to do coronations.
*
Arguably a point to their credit, theologically speaking.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
As far the OP is concerned I'm with Leo - the church aspires to change culture rather than reflect it.
Niall Feeguson,, in his excellent book Civilisation, argues that the lack of an established church in the States is one of the reasons that it hasn't experinced the same decline in Christian belief and practice that we have experinced in the UK. He points to the high numbers of different churches, and the elemen of competition between them for the souls of their local communities ....
But that's wrong about churches in the USA. All the mainline protestant churches have experienced steep declines in membership, attendance and financial support. Only the Roman Catholics and Protrestant independent mega-churches (big-box and sort of Evangelical) show growth.
The Roman Catholics show growth because of immigration. The mega-big boxes are more entertainment for the crowds than real church.
*
Ferguson is a European, and by European standards, church decline in the USA is still almost negligible! It's also taken much longer to occur in the USA than it has in Europe.
There are some sociologists who take a supply-side view of American religion, which is that in the USA complete religious freedom has created a market in which dynamic entrants can flourish. It's not about whether megachurches count as 'religion' in the minds of disapproving outsiders, but whether they, like any other kind of church, are providing the kind of religious service that can compete on a level playing field and can attract participants.
In European countries, the dominance of national churches tends to have a culturally debilitating effect on smaller churches. It's not that smaller churches aren't allowed to exist (which used to be the case), but that they're marginalised. The religious voice of the nation is the state (or quasi-state) church, and the standards of religious normality are set by that church.
Usually, belonging to the state church is more prestigious than belonging to any of the smaller groups. This means that there's a constant pressure on the smaller groups to obtain the same status as the state church. The most obvious way for an individual to do so is simply to join the state church, and historically, socially-climbing Nonconformists in England would often abandon their chapels and join the CofE after a couple of generations. I don't think this is such a huge factor now, simply because the Nonconformists don't really have that many people left to lose, but I do wonder if Anglican evangelicalism has grown in influence today largely because it gives middle class evangelicals a prestigious public platform that they simply wouldn't have if they were in the Baptist Church, or one of the newer evangelical groups.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
