Worship at the Abbey

Matins Sermon: Establishment

22 February 2009 at 10:00 am

The Church of England is by law the Established Church in this country. That gives it a special place in the constitution, the Queen is not only Head of State but Head of the Church of England. It also has certain consequences that others see as privileges; the most senior Bishops are in the House of Lords for example, it is prayers led by Anglican clergy that start Parliament in both Houses each day. And there are some places, most notably this Abbey as the Coronation Church and St George’s Windsor, which are answerable not to any Bishops but directly to the Monarch herself.

It is a unique position, and I suppose for that if for no other reason it is sometimes challenged. Some will ask how it can be justified when we live in a multicultural society. Are there not a variety of different religions and denominations, and many who hold no religious views at all in this varied society? In such a setting how can it be right that one church should have such a privileged status?

If those questions are to be faced, and I believe they should be, it is important first of all to get the fullest picture. The so-called privileges of establishment are only one side of a two sided coin. The other side is the rights ordinary people have to the ministrations of their local parish church. Church of England parochial clergy should, and normally do take the funerals of any in the community whose families ask for that service irrespective of whether the deceased was a regular church-goer or even a believer. As long as one of the parties to a marriage is baptised a couple can normally be married as of right in their parish church. And if parents want the birth of their child to be marked publicly by baptism then most clergy will readily do so, even though, sadly and wrongly in my view, some try to impose conditions contrary to canon law.

And alongside those rights of individual parishioners there is a strong sense still in many Church of England parochial clergy that they are there not just as chaplains to their congregations, but as representatives of the Church to the whole community, concerned for its overall wellbeing. Often, on that basis, they engage in contacts with schools as governors, with the local social services in concerns about particular individuals, with local government in its concerns for the whole community, and they often work closely with representatives of other religious communities where they are present in seeking to establish and maintain social cohesion. That still happens in many parts of England, and I would maintain that the most Senior Bishops in the Church of England are in the House of Lords carrying out their responsibilities there because parochial clergy in their Dioceses are on the ground, carrying out that role in their communities. There are two sides to the coin of establishment.

Of course it is sometimes very difficult, gone are the days when there was one clergyman to every thousand or so of the population so that everyone would be known by their vicar or rector. But I have to say that when I was the Team Rector of a parish of nearly 30,000, with five team vicars and other clergy working together in that ministry, I always thought what mattered was not how many people I and the other clergy knew, but how many knew one of us. My guess is that then, in that town, many of the population knew of at least one of us if not more, so embedded were we in various ways in that community. And I do not believe we were unique.

So that is the overall picture against which the question of establishment must be faced, and it leads to one obvious conclusion, that establishment is not primarily about privilege, but about responsibility. My suspicion is that the Bishops in the House of Lords find that to be so as well. Most of them are not lacking in things to do, but representing all who live in their Dioceses in the Upper House of the Parliament of the land is a responsibility; one, I might add, that it seems the leading figures of other religions in those communities often value and respect. I was told about one Diocesan Bishop with a large Moslem element in his diocese who invited one of the leading Imams of his area to address his Diocesan Synod shortly after the 9/11 bombings. The Imam was appreciative, not just of the invitation but for the fact that Bishop was prepared to explain the views of the Moslem Community even in settings such as the House of Lords. The Imam said to the Bishop in front of the Synod, ‘Bishop, we consider you to be the leader of the Moslems here.’ I was told by his Archdeacon that the Bishop was rather pleased with that until the Archdeacon pointed out that the following week would see the start of Ramadan.

In this Abbey we have a particular perspective on that sense of responsibility, not just as the Coronation Church, an event that occurs, happily, only occasionally, but far more regularly in seeking to provide appropriate religious services for national organisations and occasions which we do not just for the sake of the Christian community, but for the sake of the whole community. Whether it be services to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the marriage of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, or the sixtieth anniversary of the National Health Service, or memorial services for figures of national significance we are not acting as a narrowly sectarian Christian body, but one which uses our Christian inheritance to form a response to whatever event it might be in a way that acknowledges the spiritual element that is always there. If we, or St Paul’s Cathedral, or St George’s Windsor, did not do that, then who would, and what would happen to the often confused emotions that so often surround these things? I suggest that a secular event in, say, Westminster Hall, would leave many profoundly disappointed.

But if that is at least part of the case for establishment, it does have some consequences for the Church of England.

First, it provides a basis for strongly resisting the sectarian moves that can be seen in parts of the Church. Those moves affect still only a minority in the church, although it is a vociferous minority, one that recalls that famous image of the Church of England that says it is like a swimming pool, with all the noise coming from the shallow end. But it is a serious threat, illustrated by those who want to apply all sorts of conditions to those who wish for the services of the church whether it be in the occasional services of baptism, marriage or funerals, or the more community occasions associated with celebrating some community or national event. If the Church of England is to be true to its character it must be here for everyone who wants it services, and sectarianism is a fundamental threat to the very integrity of the Church of England.

And secondly, it means that we must be prepared to defend the Christian vision of life in the public sphere and not retreat to a private one alone. If those in the public sphere wish to attack Christianity, and clearly in a free society they have every right to do so, then it is in the public sphere that their views must be examined. Where they have a legitimate point that must be acknowledged. Where they are wrong, or, more often, grossly distort what sensible Christians are saying, then they must be openly challenged.

In that process of public debate it is inevitable that Christianity will develop. Most Christians today, for example, have adapted their understanding of how the world started to take account of the scientific developments like Darwinism. We do not believe exactly what our Christian forebears did two hundred years ago, and it would be foolish to think that process of development has now ended. The core convictions will remain, but how they are seen and how they are expressed is bound to develop. I do not believe we should be alarmed at that prospect.

So establishment implies some challenges for the Church of England, because it is about responsibility and not about privilege. It is a responsibility that I do not believe we should lightly abandon, and I can only hope and pray that in grappling with its consequences this pulpit will continue to have a role.