Disestablishment of Church and the Mark of the Beast
 LONDON (AFP) - Eyebrows were raised in the House of Commons on Thursday when a motion calling for the Church of England to be disestablished was listed with the number 666, symbol of the AntiChrist. This is undoubtedly a controversial issue for many reasons. That debate is most welcome. The motivation behind disestablishment of the Church is a bit more clear. The radical secularisation of England who was once the engine promoting the spread of Western Christendom to the ends of the earth has sadly been replaced by radical secularism and failed mutliculturalism. Do the readers have an opinion about the establishment or [dis]establishment of the C of E? What opinions are there and why? |
posted by Jeffrey Steel at 1:21 PM
Comments on "Disestablishment of Church and the Mark of the Beast"
-
DP Cassidy said ... (11 January 2008 23:38) :
-
Fr. Jeffrey said ... (12 January 2008 13:06) :
-
Gil Garza said ... (12 January 2008 15:39) :
-
Fr. Jeffrey said ... (12 January 2008 15:46) :
-
Gil Garza said ... (12 January 2008 18:28) :
-
driver8 said ... (13 January 2008 03:26) :
-
nekliw said ... (14 January 2008 00:35) :
-
DP Cassidy said ... (14 January 2008 01:45) :
-
driver8 said ... (14 January 2008 03:29) :
-
Mike Spreng said ... (14 January 2008 03:44) :
-
A Simple Sinner said ... (14 January 2008 18:21) :
-
Philip said ... (14 January 2008 20:38) :
-
Olympiada said ... (24 January 2008 08:05) :
-
Fr. J. said ... (25 January 2008 01:09) :
post a commentFr. Jeff,
My opposition to the dis-establishment of the Church of England is fueled by the coursing pulse of radical secularism and the growing threat of Islamofascism. Sadly much of the CofE is neither catholic nor evangelical, and so giving certain quarters a decent Christian burial may seem tempting. But such an anabaptist impulse should be resisted today, recognizing that the 'cure' of dis-establishment is greater cause for concern than the disease of declension. Moreover, the stated intentions of Charles to be 'Defender of Faiths' rather than 'the Faith' (and I appreciate the ironies of the origin of that Royal Ascription) leaves no doubt that my British friends should await better days before endorsing such a course. Unfaithful rulers may still be rebuked by a faithful and prophetic Church, and one hopes that there are some more Ambrose like figures on the horizon in the UK to deal with the Theodosius like characters coming to power in the arrogant secualrist west, living as it does off the capital of a once thriving and vibrant Christendom.
Of course I was opposed to the demolition of the Lords as well, and we see how that went!
Thanks for your comments David. For very many reasons I too am not in favour of dis-establishment but there are also moments where I am. We live in very strange but exciting times. I just returned from a funeral visit that was wonderful and had it not been for our established church, I would not have had the opportunities just experienced to see a family desire to return to church after a long time out! For missiological reasons in our culture today, I am actually grateful for establishment. The legal side of things is what is more frustrating.
Nice blog.
The only way to save Christianity in Europe is to bury the state-church model and adopt free American style separation of church and state. I doubt that will ever happen as churchmen will never turn away from their subsidies that they receive from the state.
Gil
Thanks for the kind words.
What state subsidies do you mean? Can you explain what you are talking about here please? Thanks!
Church taxes. Government aid, grants, guarantees, finance, equity, and trusts. In some European countries payments from the governement come directly to church coffers. Britain has a much more Byzantine finance scheme. The monarch's role as supreme governor of the Church of England tightly interweaves state and Church into this scheme.
The disatisfaction, pessimism and distrust that people around the world feel for governments (particularly large encroaching ones) is also aimed at Churches which cooperate with these governments in Europe.
The Church of England is not directly funded from taxation. However the huge assets mananged by the Church Commissioners are inseperable from its relationship with Parliament and the Crown. That is, its funding is tied up with the historic link to the state. The Church Commissioners are also responsible to Parliament. They pay just under 20% of clergy stipends.
Fort me, the real question about establishment is not whether it gives clergy entre to situations from which they are otherwise absent but whether in itself it has has tended to make the CofE uninterested in evangelism and the bulk of the English uninterested in being evangelised.
I too have heard of these subsidies about half a year ago from a Wall Street Journal article on Christianity and Europe. It suggests that perhaps the fate of Christianity (in Europe at least) rests on a non-denominational evangelical movement much like what happened (happening?) in the US. Do you guys want me to post it here from my ProQuest account?
There are historians who will argue that the large numbers that have been part of the Church in America (considered broadly) is due to the disestablishment of the Church and the 'free market competition' for members that resulted. But the Church was not a dis-established entity at the first in Colonial America, though even from the first the transfer of the Old Faith to the new world meant substantive changes in the new environment.
Is it an 'advance' for the Faith that we have radical fragmentation of the Church as we see across the north american landscape?
Religion and culture are inextricably linked - cultus to culture, etc. If the UK commits suicide by low Christian birth rates in the face of mounting births in the Islamic community, if the Church apostatizes more and more, then it is true that a new and more radical evangelicalims may be raised up to rescue the old. Or it may be, as Jenkins suggests, that the third world Church will rise up to nourish and salvage the first world Church.
Having lived in both the UK and the US, pastoring in both, I would want to endorse the continued establishment of the Church for pastoral, evangelistic, and cultural reasons. It has been noted that 'tolerance' is simply a step along the path to a new tyranny. Liberty of conscience for all is essential (John Paul 2 was particularly able defender of this). But the abandonment of the nation by the Church - or the rejection of the Church by the nation - cannot be seen as other than a sad development.
It is worth saying that the visible church is tragically fragmented in England too. It's simply that with considerably fewer folks attending church the fragmentation is considerably less ostentatious. Whether that counts as something to be celebrated or mourned is in my view exactly what should be the heart of this discussion.
If the CofE is dis-established then Anglicanism is reduced (or exhalted, depending on your view) to another doctrinal-based church such as the Protestant.
"Anglicanism" is dependent on the monarch. This will not necessarily be a bad thing, but it won't be an Anglican thing. There will no longer be the dominion that was promised as Abrahams descendants. The unity that Christ desires (John 17:21) will have to come through another union such as the RC or the EO.
If this dis-establishment happens, then the CofE will have to become a "movement" of the Roman or Orthodox Church (i.e. Reformed Catholics), confirming the name "seperated Brethren." We will still be Anglican but without a secured flagship.
"We will still be Anglican but without a secured flagship."
I am an outsider looking in on this one... But it had never occured to me that the church-state relationship in the person of the soverign served Anglicanism in a fashion of making of the CofE a secured flagship for world Anglicanism... Or do I read too much or wrongly into what you write?
ISTM that the most conservative, orthodox, and catholic parties in the CofE would be the ones calling for disestablishment the loudest at this time. AT least I would be if I were there - though I may not understand this well enough!
Current trends in TEC and the CofE point to a continued demographic decline with a continued increased in ordinands and clergy who are on the way to positions of power as a larger episcopate serves a smaller number of clergy and faithful. Establishment only entrenches and puts a national face and petina of respectability on a minority. Think "trust fund babies". Or just think "Kennedys".
Assuring establishment, seems only to assure a near future where the sovereign's coronation is attended to by the Archbishop of Canterbury and her husband, or her domestic partner. Look at Sweden.
I happen to believe - and I don't think I am too crazy for it - that the future of Euro Christianity is in it being bolstered by second and third world immigration from places where Christianity is growing. Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia...
Oswald Spengler imagined Jerusalem being entered by Chinese Christians coming from the East. With almost as many Catholics (let alone Evangelicals) in China alone as their are Anglicans worldwide, this vision is sounding less and less farfetched.
With these folks in the future about to arrive at our doorstep to rescue and renew us, why leave as our legacy one more roadblock to overcome?
I don't mean to sound negative, but seeing no growth (just decline) in the future of the CofE, I can't understand why anyone would insist on securing such a place of honor for a radical minority.
I think as English Christians, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
The pros and cons cancel each other out.
I am just learning about the Church of England, and I am a member of the Orthodox Church. I would be sad if it were disestablished. I like it.
As an American Catholic, I am not directly affected by this issue, but let me offer some thoughts.
My first impulse would be to retain establishment status in order to keep a Christian identity for the English nation. However, there are important reasons why not to. In the modern age, the connection between church and state is tenuous at best. Less and less does it make sense for the PM to appoint the ABC or the ABY. Less and less does it make sense that the government have a theological orientation. And, while the Church receives benefits from its current status, there is no greater value to the church than her prophetic freedom to preach the good news.
Catholicism has two advantages in England. It is free to speak its mind to the society in general and it is free from the political correctness that politics bring and which diminish the gospel's edge.
If the Church of England is to regain its stature, it will need to find that gospel edge rather than repeat the zeitgeist of the current age.
I was taken aback recently when reading the ABC on abortion. He so obviously was appalled by the increasing frequency of the practice but had almost nothing to offer in regard to moral teaching on the matter. It is clear that the CofE is hamstrung by being tied to the state and has lost its power to speak credibly to the the British people.
Thankfully, Catholicism will never be established in England and has already been disestablished nearly everywhere else, leaving the Catholic Church free to speak the words men need to hear. I wish the same for the CofE.