The writhings of worldwide Anglicanism are another reason to disestablish the Church of England
Aug 7th 2008
From The Economist print edition
IN THE end it held together, but only just. The 650-odd bishops who attended the once-a-decade Lambeth conference went home with open schism between the liberal and conservative wings of the worldwide Anglican Communion averted. A split may prove no more than postponed, as the agreed mechanisms for making minds meet are oh-so-slowly put in place (see article). But at least the unedifying spectacle of comrades in Christ tearing strips off each other over gay sex will vanish from the headlines for a bit.
Does it matter if Anglicans fall out? Most churches are riven by tensions: it is not so long ago that the Roman Catholic Opus Dei glared at liberation theologists, and Moscow’s Orthodox still squabble like mad with Constantinople’s. But Anglicans lack the glue that binds those churches together: the power of the pope to impose discipline on straying Catholics; the body of undisputed theology that unites Orthodox believers even when they quarrel. Anglicanism works through relationships, a sense of belonging to a family with a shared inheritance. That now has waned. Despite the apparent reprieve, this year’s Lambeth conference could well be the last of its kind.
As a secular newspaper that supports gay marriage and believes in a firm line between church and state, we can hardly claim to be a neutral observer in this. Yet trying to look at the Communion from an Anglican perspective (or that of most of them), two things stand out. First, schism might not be a bad thing. And disestablishment would be a very good thing.
Good and bad reasons to stick together
The first point is simple realism. Too many angels have danced on too many pins as prelates struggle to embrace mutually incompatible beliefs. The rock on which the Anglican Communion is breaking is ostensibly the consecration of openly gay clergy, especially bishops, and blessings for same-sex unions. Only a small minority in America’s well-groomed Episcopal churches or the Church of England’s underpopulated pews finds clerical homosexuality non-negotiably bad nowadays. Many in Africa and other parts of the “global South” do—and they see efforts to enforce liberal values as “colonial”.
Attempting to find a way to square this circle has not been an inspiring task. Some argue that liberals must hang in there to rein in the homophobes and misogynists. In fact, too often it is the high ground that gives. The gay American bishop whose promotion launched the latest round of internecine bitterness was not invited to Lambeth. Conservative rebels refused to come anyway. If someone did manage to bury this bone of contention, another would emerge. So why haven’t liberals and conservatives gone their separate ways before now?
One reason is the sheer weight of history, but this is less important than it was. Another is that most upstarts would rather take over an existing business than go off and start their own—and in Britain, at any rate, Anglicanism’s heirs are in for some serious real estate too. A third is the fact that the Church of England, alone of the Communion, is an established church, its practices and values intertwined with the state and nation it serves. Its peculiar status has inclined it to fudge the argument.
Establishment brings fewer material advantages to the Church of England these days than the Lutherans, for example, enjoy in much of Scandinavia. And a creeping disestablishment is under way. Yet centuries of crowning kings, burying princesses, celebrating the nation’s victories, running a lot of its state-funded schools and getting Parliament to cast an eye over the decisions of its ruling General Synod have made the Church of England what it is. It prides itself on keeping the door open to all comers, though few pop in. It stresses inclusiveness and stands up for a public space for all faiths. Admirable stuff—but its numbers are falling.
Compare that with churches in America, or Africa. No theocrats they, but fishers of men in competitive waters. Their messages must be more sharply defined to win souls. But by keeping the focus soft, as an established church must, the Church of England, which dominates this least authoritarian of associations, has blunted the contest of ideas and distorted debate within the Communion (and its own ranks). Time, surely, for all sides to fight their corner, free of the shackles of the state.