Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

God save the Queen

Anglicans have good reason to be grateful to Elizabeth II. But will the church-state link be quite s

By Nelson Jones Published 10 January 2012 15:51

The Church of England has announced its plans to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee later this year. It is hoping that all its 13,000 parishes will involve themselves with initiatives including The Big Jubilee Lunch, which "will see millions across the country joining together to have lunch on the afternoon of Sunday, June 3rd", and The Big Thank-You, in which churches and cathedrals will invite members of the congregation to add their names to a collective thank-you letter to the monarch. Containing an introductory paragraph by diocesan bishops, the letters "give the public a chance to say a few words in appreciation of 60 years of loyal service."

In some ways, this is the Church of England doing its job. The Establishment "deal", as conceived centuries ago, gave the Anglican church immense privileges within society (bishops in the House of Lords, for example) in exchange for the church giving its moral backing to the state. The monarchy remains the most visible symbol of the church-state link. As Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Queen receives the "homage" of bishops on their appointment and even ordinary parish priests are expected to swear an oath of allegiance to her. Prayers for members of the royal family are offered daily in every C of E church in the land. (Francis Galton, the Victorian scientist and inventor of eugenics, once did a statistical analysis of the life-expectancy of members of the royal family and concluded that the prayers didn't work.)

The Queen promised in her Coronation Oath to "maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England" and to "preserve the rights and privileges" of Anglican clergy. But her formal religious duties are in fact fairly limited. She distributes symbolic coins to worthy pensioners at a cathedral each Maundy Thursday, and offers a prayer at each State Opening of Parliament that "the blessings of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels." Her presence at the annual Remembrance ceremony at the Cenotaph might also be regarded as a religious occasion. At least technically, certain church appointments (such as parishes within the Duchy of Lancaster) are in the direct gift of the Crown. By and large, though, the monarch's position as head of the Church of England is a purely symbolic and ceremonial one.

But there's no doubt that the present Queen has taken a close personal interest in the religious aspect of her job. She is, by most accounts, personally devout. Certainly, her Christmas messages in recent years have been increasingly explicit in their Christian content. In the most recent, for example, she pronounced that "God sent into the world a unique person ... a Saviour, with the power to forgive" and offered a prayer that "We might all find room in our lives for the message of the angels and for the love of God through Christ our Lord." The Archbishop of Canterbury's own New Year Message contained rather fewer mentions of God.

So the Church of England's leaders have reason to be sincere in offering a "Big Thank You" to the Queen, not least for living and reigning for so long. Things might not be quite so straightforward under the next Sovereign. Prince Charles's interest in religion is well-known, but it would seem very different from the uncomplicated and quiet Anglicanism of his mother. He has famously expressed a desire to be "defender of faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith", a distinction that may seem more appropriate in a multi-faith society but which also implies a more problematic desire to involve himself in theological debates (as well as leaving atheists and agnostics seemingly undefended). Some of the more traditionally-minded clergy objected to his divorce and remarriage in a civil ceremony. A few even questioned its legality.

The next coronation, if indeed there is a next coronation, is unlikely to be an Anglican monopoly like that in 1953. Will the new king be expected, or willing, to swear to uphold "the Protestant reformed religion established by law"? It seems unlikely. But it seems even more unlikely that the Church of England would give up its official status easily, or even that it will be seriously questioned. I suspect that the C of E will be offering prayers, and even Big Thank-Yous, to monarchs for as long as the monarchy persists. Anachronisms survive best if they stick together.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Church of England The Queen Monarchy

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

17 comments

Fri, 2012-01-13 11:17 — Sir Michael (not verified)

@ - la potenza della speranza Your rampant bigotry and culturally illiteracy aside, you should bear in mind that a lot of taxpayers are religious thus are entitled to say where taxes should go. Once you start saying "taxes should only be spent on the things I agree with" you are just creating a libertarian system. That's ok, but then we will close hospitals, police, welfare etc and privatize absolutely everything.

Fri, 2012-01-13 13:51 — Robert Taggart

God save the Queen ?...
Indeed... and oneself be a republican !
Seriously... one would be more than happy to see her break Vicky's record for tenure of the throne - that could be four more years or sixteen ! (if she equals her 'old woman's' age).
The BIG question be - what comes after her ? As things stand that would be a right Charlie !

Wed, 2012-01-11 14:15 — David (not verified)

Who cares?

Wed, 2012-01-11 15:04 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

It is un utter absurduty that either of these moraly bankrupt institutions have any clout in a supposed "mature democracy". Time for a secular republic!

Thu, 2012-01-12 16:58 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

"We have also arranged things so is going to blow up in our faces"

I love this quote from Carl Sagan.

Religion more than any other human custom has played it's part in this 'arrangement'. It is to our detriment as a species that our developement has been hamstrung by this mass self delusion. If people choose to believe in religion then all power to them however religious leaders should not be anywhere near positions of power and influence, or taxpayers' money. Neither should hereditary unelected, landed gentry. It is an utter absurdity.

I'm no cultural nihilist. Culture consists of far more than kings, queens, gods, fairies, elves and whatever else. Islam's iminent invasion? Somehow I don't see it materialising.

Thu, 2012-01-12 17:00 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

Apologies, the Carl Sagan quote should be:

We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

Not sure what happened there

Wed, 2012-01-11 18:20 — jamesjones950 (not verified)

The Remembrance Sunday event at the Cenotaph is an utter disgrace. Did you know that the British Humanist Association was barred from laying a wreath? This event, at least, should be totally secular, like the wonderful and highly admirable 9/11 memorial was. I second the motion for a secular Republic. We should not alloow postions of power to be held by people who profess to believe in a god, for they are clearly either deluded or charlatans. They can't have it both ways.

Wed, 2012-01-11 20:42 — Freeman2

'... the next reign'? Surely this is the last.

Wed, 2012-01-11 21:38 — Michael C Feltham (not verified)

"Will the new king be expected, or willing, to swear to uphold "the Protestant reformed religion established by law"? "

You should toddle off to a Church of England Eucharist someday soon, Mr Jones and then you would find even in the modernised version, the Nicene Creed is still recited by all.

Part of the creed says:

"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

Note the small "c in "catholic".

Yet never fear: whilst you cultural Nihilists have been busy determining the destruction of most of the institutions which once made Britain great, not only will HM Queen Elizabeth II be the last monarch to preside over this land, the Liberal Imperative ensures imminent invasion by Islam over the next 25 years.......

Thereafter, the secularism and alleged freedoms you believe you have won will evaporate in a trice.

Fri, 2012-01-13 22:07 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

@sirmichael

I'm No bigot. I don't particularly like the idea of paying for psuedo-science to be taught to children as it was to me in Catholic school. Nor do I like the idea of bishops in the Lords making decisions on the laws of society or someone inheriting power simply because they emerged from a certain womb. This doesn't mean I am against the NHS, schools, welfare, police. Quite the opposite in fact.
Everyone has an opinion on how tax money is spent. This doesn't turn them or me into Ron Paul! What an odd assertion.

Fri, 2012-01-13 22:22 — Sir Michael (not verified)

la potenza della speranza -

Well you've said religious leaders shouldn't be near power or influence. Doesn't the same apply to atheist leaders, Dawkins, Harris et all? Indeed doesn't that apply to anyone at all? You've arbitrarly selected a group of people you don't want to be in a position of power based upon them being religious - that is bigotry and intolerance, similar to Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell in fact.

Secondly, you don't want taxes spent on things you personally find objectionable. That's ok. You'll find many don't want taxes spent on abortion, why shouldn't they have that wish granted? There are others who don't want to fund jobless benefits, yet others who find legal aid for people arrested by the police abhorrent.

Should we allow these things to continue?

Every one of us who has a stake in society has to make a sacrifice of not being able to force our neighbours and fellow citizens to follow our beliefs and live their lives according to our own paradigms. If you can't accomodate people you disagree with, then you're really no better than the religious fanatics you rather ironically oppose.

Fri, 2012-01-13 23:05 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

@Sir Michael

There's nothing arbitrary about it. It's based on knowledge of the sordid history of organised religion. Its cosy relationship with totalitarian regimes, its deliberate suppression of free enquiry etc. I'm not intolerant of religious people and I find the idea abhorrent frankly. I as a Roman Catholic (long since lapsed) brought up in a church of Scotland area have suffered at the hands of it. I just see religion as utterly obsolete and am swayed by the arguments of those who say that religious organisations should not receive state backing. And maybe I do have a slight chip on my shoulder having been fed a web of lies in a religious school. I welcome disagreement but I'm not too comfortable with being labelled a 'bigot' by people who don't know me just because I have a strong opinion on a particular subject. As for abortion, I am really undecided on it myself. I believe that to be one of the most wide open debates going so I have nothing against those who oppose it as I can see their argument. The welfare state I'm strongly in favour of and I'm not too happy that people with millions of pounds are able to pedal negativity about it to their hearts' content. Does that make me a bigot or intolerant of those who hold a different belief? No it does not.

Although I'm firmly in the atheist camp I'm not closed minded on it, therefore not a bigot. The evidence is utterly overwhelming against God that's all.

Sat, 2012-01-14 00:14 — Sir Michael (not verified)

la potenza della speranza -

Interesting. Organised religion is horrendous yet organised atheism gets a free pass?

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm

Dialectical materialism has been behind more horror than any theocracy, but that aside, you've shown a strong commitment to bigotry.

"There's nothing arbitrary about it. It's based on knowledge of the sordid history of organised religion. Its cosy relationship with totalitarian regimes, its deliberate suppression of free enquiry etc."

You are holding the religious people of today responsible for the behaviour of others who have nothing to do with them. That they hold similar religious beliefs doesn't mean a whole lot.

This is the sort of guilt by association that is at the core of how bigotry operates. It's exactly what racists do when they quote crime figures commited by some ethnic minority they have an issue with, then they try to associate everyone in that minority with that behaviour and use that as an excuse to restrict their rights and silence their voices.

I personally believe Christian people do belong in politics, as well as atheists (who are under-represented), agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Pagans and whatever else. It is important everyone has their voice and uses it to talk to others on the other side with understanding and humility, not arrogance and supremacism.

Tue, 2012-01-10 21:38 — historybuff

You failed to mention the most agregious aspect of the special treatment of the C of E; its enormous wealth and virtually tax free status that is without parallel anywhere else in the economy. The Church is among the top five largest landowners in England, and distributes it's income in the form of tax free housing and other perks to its thousands of clergy. Clergy, even the lowest level vicars, send their children to the country's top private schools including Eton and Harrow at taxpayers expense while their parishioners have to be content with the local comprehensive.
If the income of the Church was taxed as any other corporation, these anomalies and abuses could no longer be afforded. The houses of the local vicar are usually among the best in the entire locality, and yet are provided free of charge. The Church also enjoys the unique legal privilege of being able to evict tenants from its property without the need to show any due cause and immunity from being sued.

We were treated recently to the spectacle of senior clergy at St Pauls hobnobbing with the Occupy protesters and claiming to be on the same side, while privately these men enjoy privileges that would shock most people. Not only that, but the Church continues to oppose equal treatment for gay and lesbian people.
The sooner the Church is disestablished ant treated by the law and tax authorities as any other corporation the better.