The Church of England is not a church of privilege, but of obligation

 

From Cranmer

Here we go again. Someone in high authority (in this instance, the Prime Minister) happens to mention that the United Kingdom is a “Christian country”, and then mounts a defence (of sorts) of the constitutional establishment of the Church of England, and out they crawl from under every stone and slither out of the crumbling timbers of the disintegrating religio-political edifice – an entire tribulation of trolling disestablishmentarianists, who posit (with varying degrees of socio-politico-ecclesio-theological comprehension) that both Church and State would benefit from the severing of the union which has bound them since England’s kings in ancient times first responded to the gospel of salvation and pledged to govern these islands in accordance with the lively oracles of God.

And so we have Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg:

More generally speaking, about the separation of religion and politics. As it happens, my personal view – I’m not pretending this is something that’s discussed in the pubs and kitchen tables of Britain – but my personal view is that, in the long-run, having the state and the church basically bound up with each other, as we do in this country, is, in the long run…I actually think it would be better for the church and better for people of faith, and better for Anglicans, if the church and the state were to, over time, stand on their own two separate feet, so to speak. But that’s not going to happen overnight, for sure.

..supported by the National Secular Society:

“At last, we have a high profile politician have the courage to say that separating church and state would be a good idea. None of the others dare say it, although it is quite clear that the time has come to do it.”

..supported by former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams:

Read here

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.