Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

God's Peculiar People

British identity is much less linked to religion than it used to be - where does this leave the established church?

By Nelson Jones Published 14 June 2012 12:11

The United Reformed Church built by Sit Titus Salt in Bradford. Photograph: Getty Images

What does it mean to be British? For most of the 18th and 19th centuries - even to some extent into the 20th - there was a clear answer. To be British was to be Protestant. It was to read the King James Bible and Pilgrim's Progress, to share in a national myth of a heroic people, almost a new Israel, set apart and protected by God, and it was to not be Catholic. Protestantism linked grand English cathedrals, plain Calvinist kirks and ecstatic Welsh chapels. For most British people, Protestantism provided shared language, hymns and cultural references, while Catholicism provided a shared enemy, otherwise known as The French.

As Linda Colley argued in her classic study Britons, protestantism was "the foundation that made the invention of Great Britain possible."

There never was a single Church of Britain. Attempts by 17th century monarchs to impose a uniform type of Protestant Christianity in England and Scotland failed. The two established churches remained distinct in organisation, in culture and to some extent in doctrine. Even within England, the Anglican church always had to compete with a multitude of dissenting sects: Puritans, Quakers and Baptists in the 17th century, Methodists (who went on to dominate religion in Wales and much of Northern England) in the 18th. And, of course, there were always competing strands of practice and belief within the Church of England itself.

Yet this diversity was itself distinctively Protestant. Even Anglo-Catholics, who convinced themselves that the Church of England was not, in fact, protestant at all, preferred to stay and argue for their position as a minority within the established church rather than follow their own logic and submit themselves to the "foreign" jurisdiction of the Pope. For the British, Protestantism was always as much an expression of national identity as it was one of religious belief.

These days relatively few people in the UK, whatever their religious affiliations, feel much attachment to this style of Protestant identity, or if they do it is one of nostalgia rather than of belief. It's no accident that some of the strongest supporters of the King James Bible are atheists like Richard Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens. As for anti-Catholicism, that is going out of fashion even in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the fierce attachment of Ulster unionists to traditional expressions of Protestant British identity have long been a source of bemusement and embarrassment on the mainland. That version of Britishness now seems frankly un-British to most Brits, whose remaining anti-Catholic instincts are sated by laughing at some papal pronouncement on birth control or observing the (let's face, it, deserved) predicament of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

Modern Britain is, of course, secular (indeed irreligious) in tone and institutionally committed to embracing many different faiths. Indeed, Catholic Emancipation in 1829, when most of the laws discriminating against Catholics were done away with, can be seen as the first of many steps away from a Protestant society and towards a multi-faith one. Only a bare majority of the population now describe themselves as Christian; increasingly "None" has begun to replace "C of E" as the default option of the unsure when asked about their religious affiliation. Millions of us no longer know the words to once-familiar hymns or have more than the basic knowledge of Christian doctrines. It's unlikely that Michael Gove's generous gift of a King James Bible to every school in the land will do much to stem the tide of apathy.

How has all this affected the established churches, and in particular the Church of England? In some ways, the Church has managed the transition with remarkable success. Its churches are still popular venues for weddings and its clergy continue to officiate at the majority of funerals. A third of England's state schools are faith schools, the vast majority of them either Anglican or Roman Catholic. There are still bishops in the House of Lords. Anglican services still form the heart of many national events, as shown recently during the Diamond Jubilee. The Church has shown itself to be adaptable and at times ruthless in defence of its considerable social and constitutional privileges. And there's no doubt that its image of woolly, good-natured, slightly shambolic harmlessness has been central to its success in retaining the affection of a large proportion of the religiously uninterested population. The modern Church of Scotland, too, is these days much less dourly Protestant than it reputation south of the border would suggest, or than John Knox would have approved of.

In particular, the Church of England has cannily positioned itself as the linchpin of a multi-faith society, presenting for example its bishops in the House of Lords as spokesmen for religion in general rather than for Christianity in particular. This has, of course, involved a considerable rewriting of history. The Queen, for example, suggested in a speech made at Lambeth Palace in February that "gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely." It's true that Anglicanism has always been something of a fudge, of course, but Her Maj rather overlooked the fact that in previous centuries, the Church fought hard to preserve its monopolies against Catholics and even against Protestant dissenters. Times have changed, however, and the Church of England, as usual, has changed with them.

Has it, though, changed enough? There are dangers for the Church in embracing an enhanced multi-faith role in a society in which strong religious commitment is waning. By speaking out on behalf of faith, forming alliances with other churches and religious groups, it risks losing that comforting and liberal image that has, until now, made it a source of national unity rather than division. It risks losing that vague connection with the people without which it ceases to be in any proper sense a national church and becoming once more a bastion of religious conservatism and even prejudice.

By coming out so strongly against same-sex marriage, for example, the Church leadership has made itself look to many people out of touch and divisive, including to many of its natural supporters, including to many of its practising members and even clergy. It's hard to believe that the C of E has much of a future as the Daily Mail at prayer.

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

Tags: What does it mean to be British? Church of England

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

41 comments

Sun, 2012-06-24 12:41 — kevinmorris (not verified)

So the Church of England is fine providing it is 'wooly minded' but as soon as it takes a stand on an issue that goes against current fashion or perhaps a right wing government's desire to be seen as liberal in the face of events to the contrary, it is in danger of oblivion?

One of the most important roles of religion- I mean all religions in almost all epochs- is in offering advice and guidance that might often go against current social mores.

Seemingly because that advice goes against a current sacred cow of the secular variety, the Church of England is menaced by veiled warnings about lack of future as 'the Daily Mail at prayer'

Surely, religion- all religions- would have no role whatsoever of all they did was tell people what they wanted to hear.

Wed, 2012-06-20 09:25 — Bhuvnesh (not verified)

Well we don't need them, at all, ever. They cling desperately to the cosy lifestyles afforded them by the deluded and the gullible, supported generation upon generation by being allowed to control our schools, and to influence successive governments too scared to tell them to keep their medieval belief systems out of politics.
Flats in Dwarka

Tue, 2012-06-19 09:20 — Turner (not verified)

School loan consolidation is unquestionably a popular apply in the U.S. You can see there are a great many sign up for a number of loans . The loan combination is the best way to resolve the problem . It can be planned at incorporating jointly the loans offered by distinct lending companies . Due to the school loan consolidation , each student can readily pay through a single bill only. Paying out loans would turn into smooth and simple.

Tue, 2012-06-19 09:19 — Turner (not verified)

Fri, 2012-06-15 17:58 — Jamesjones950 (not verified)

Popes, bishops, priests, imams, rabbis, archbishops, cardinals, rectors, parsons, ministers.
There seems to be no end to the fancy names that self-styled "holy men" give themselves. I have just one collective name for the whole self-serving bunch of them : The Unnecessaries.
They need you. You don't need them, at all, ever. They cling desperately to the cosy lifestyles afforded them by the deluded and the gullible, supported generation upon generation by being allowed to control our schools, and to influence successive governments too scared to tell them to keep their medieval belief systems out of politics.

Mon, 2012-06-18 12:56 — David S Wilson (not verified)

I guess the Russians came back to the church because they found the church alot less deluded than the communists who also thought the church was deluded and that we were not fallen and had no need of a saviour. Of course the godless mess that is the european banking system does not speak in your favour either.

Fri, 2012-06-15 17:57 — Jamesjones950 (not verified)

Fri, 2012-06-15 14:32 — Xtremeno (not verified)

As rightly said "Yet this diversity was itself distinctively". Its so true if we think of it. But indeed God may be a bit of an amateur or attention seeker if this is supposed to be an example.
-----------------------------------------------------
Alex Brad
Xtreme NO

Fri, 2012-06-15 13:13 — Hikaru22

I don't think it's fair to describe the Church of England as 'the Daily Mail at prayer'.

I do agree with you that its relative harmlessness when compared to other churches and religions (the Church of Rome? Islam?) is one of the great advantages of having it as the established church. It also concerns me that if it were not the established church, then far from this leading to a jolly, multi-faith knees up, it might actually provide the starting gun for one of the other churches or faiths (the Church of Rome? Islam?) to made a bid for dominance. Such would be beyond neither the history nor the character of both. And this could lead to the sort of sectarian civil strife that we have, thus far, managed to avoid. That is my worry. And that is why I think it is short-sighted of the government to risk driving the Church of England towards schism and disestablishment by forcing gay marriage upon it, either directly, or indirectly via the Europen Court.

As the established church, we are inclined to take the Church of England for granted. But we may bitterly regret its passing, once it has gone.

Fri, 2012-06-22 22:24 — haksbrink (not verified)

I was told by my father that the Church of England was the Conservative Party at prayer.

Seems to me from 12,000 miles away that nothing much has changed.

Thu, 2012-06-14 23:50 — John Cheese (not verified)

"Freedom of" and "freedom from" religion in the Public Square...even for the nutters that wear the coned hats out in the woods & beat drums & worship science...

Thu, 2012-06-14 21:56 — Berney (not verified)

The Church of England is extraordinarily diverse. But how can it do anything other than object to gay marriage? The church is wedded to a definition of marriage: it is declared everytime it celebrates a wedding. The church would be roundly criticised if it did otherwise.

Thu, 2012-06-14 19:33 — Keir

'It is catholic reformed by the protestant tradition. '

That is a common view, but is actually theological contradiction, like the suggestion that the Mafia could reform Scotland Yard; or vice versa. The CoE, in its formularies, is condemned by the Vatican's own canons at a very basic level. It holds to those two great historic, evangelical offences to Rome, sola fide and sola Scriptura, that together still form the basis of the whole Anglican Communion, that hold it together. In addition, the CoE rejects the authority of papacy and the validity of the Vatican's priests. Perhaps most telling of all, those canons also censure transubstantiation, the giant bone of contention that so stirred the hearts and minds of John Wyclif and many other English people, for political reasons as much as religious.

What remains 'Catholic' about the CoE is its polity, that was inherited from Rome; yet it is nowhere stated in Anglican Canon Law to be essential. And indeed, episcopalianism affects nothing that any Anglican holds to be personal belief. An Anglican evangelical differs from a Methodist, Baptist or even Brethren evangelical in no important aspect, and indeed such people have worked together without even knowing of each others' denominational affiliations. Some of the most influential Anglicans have been evangelical, and some of the most influential evangelicals have lived and died Anglican (the Wesleys, for instance). So Anglicanism is as Protestant as any other species; it just depends on which part one is looking at.

Of course, there have been Anglicans with views of a wide spectrum that often had little conformity with those formularies. And that is the true nature of the CoE. It is an example of 'good old British compromise', though actually English, in this case. It is quintessentially a national church, accepting, since Tractarianism, every style of thought that may conceivably be labelled Christian- bar actual Romanism, that for hundreds of years was regarded as un-English (and still is, by not a few). Despite episcopacy, the CoE is pretty well useless as a tool of totalitarianism- to which Catholicism uniquely lends itself. The regimes of Franco, Salazar, Petain and indeed the Nazis made more or less use of the Vatican. The CoE can therefore be regarded as, almost by default, a bastion of democracy, even if it has not always sided with the interests of working people in its homeland, being known in the past as 'the Tory Party at prayer'. Whether fascist regimes are likely in the future is difficult to assess. True, the reputation of the RCC has taken a hammering in the last few decades, but public mood is fickle in times of stress. So the demise of the CoE should not be relished with atheist fervency before the issue is given careful thought. Any gains could be short-term only.

Fri, 2012-06-15 15:11 — jankaas (not verified)

"So the demise of the CoE should not be relished with atheist fervency before the issue is given careful thought."

perhaps you could entertain the notion that there are those, like me, who don't care either way for the eternal bickering amongst Christians. it's like witnessing adults arguing about the colour and style of the Emporer's new clothes.
not fervent, just bemused.

Mon, 2012-06-18 13:04 — David S Wilson (not verified)

Christian's were familiar with the emporer's clothes - as they were fed to the lions before him. The aetheist is now wearing his clothes - mocking like Caesar and Agripa. Of course there are still 2 billion in the world despite the efforts of some atheist regimes to execute them still.

Mon, 2012-06-18 13:19 — jankaas (not verified)

wow David, that is shocking to behold. what Atheist Regime is currently executing Christians? and 2 billion may be in danger, that's just terrible.
the world needs to know, so where are these murderous atheists?
and of course well done for completely failing to understand that my Emporer's Clothes metaphor stood for the vast variety of Christian denomonations who all know what that garment is supposed to look like...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

so taking that metaphor the correct conclusion is that at least atheists don't believe the Emporer is stark b*ll*ck naked. and it looks like they may just be right about that.

Mon, 2012-06-18 16:47 — jankaas (not verified)

oops, my error, that should have been;
"so taking that metaphor the correct conclusion is that at least atheists believe the Emporer is stark b*ll*ck naked."

Thu, 2012-06-14 17:14 — Malt (not verified)

If anyone of you would listen to the messages from spirit, you'd know that all the major religions of the world are going to collapse, because of manipulation and corruption, manufactured wars in their name and strait-jacket dogma. People are not "secular" in Britain at all. Quite frankly, they've grown up; they no longer believe in the balderdash hashed out by the churches anymore, yet they retain a spiritual belief. I think that people declaring themselves to be atheist should be the ones to be embarrased, they haven't evolved spiritually, like the rest of us. We're advancing, while atheists are stuck in a rut.

Thu, 2012-06-14 18:32 — jankaas (not verified)

it sounds like you have a misconception of what 'secular' means. surely the whole point of secular is that no single religious or spiritual ontology confers a preferred status, and, decisions for the good of society need to be based on evidence based reasoning.

i call myself non-theist, the term atheist is wayyy too loaded a term these days. but still i have a spiritual side to me which i label The Dury Trinity. it is the true path to happiness and fulfilment. our numbers are growing.....

Fri, 2012-06-15 07:51 — Malt (not verified)

@ Jankaas

Secularism is the belief that the state, morals, education, etc. should be independent of religion. This type of social ethics separates people from their religious beliefs and can therefore conflict and oppose so strongly as to make life impossible, which has started happening now. Although they don't necessarily go hand in hand - secularism doesn't have to bow towards evil - but when the love of wealth, greed and power enter our political and judiciary systems, then deceit, oppression and suffering begin.

I admit from all that I've learnt since leaving the education system and the regular church, that our history has been blighted by evil within these establishments, so a religious-based government is no guarantee of moral superiority. Corruption seems inevitable. Look at US politics: the president incumbent wants to change the constitution of the Republic to suit his thinking, and if he succeeds, he therefore destroys what it was set up to do, to protect the people. Now we have the present Prime Minister wanting to change the ministerial policy of our country, to suit his agenda. Should we be allowing this to happen?

Please explain The Dury Trinity, since you mentioned it. I haven't come across it, don't know what it means.

Fri, 2012-06-15 12:43 — jankaas (not verified)

"Secularism is the belief that the state, morals, education, etc. should be independent of religion. This type of social ethics separates people from their religious beliefs and can therefore conflict and oppose so strongly as to make life impossible, which has started happening now."

this is simply not true and quite a serious misrepresentation of the imagined powers of secularism.
the State can't give priority to a single religous perspective, so the only option in a modern world and society is to allow all religions to engage in debate as equals. this can only happen in a secular nation.
most morals are shared by religious and non-religious, so i would suggest that a valid moral code is essentially secular. no single religion owns human morality, though all of them tend to argue their God is the author. so how to ensure we try and understand valid human morality? again the secular option is the only evidence based one, where all voices can be heared.
education should teach our children about everything we have learned as a species, so this must include learning about religions (plural). this is what currently happens in our secular nation, my children going through the State system learn about all main religions.
i think you have a tendency to conflate Militant Atheism with secularism, which is ever so pointless imho.
btw i have no idea what specifically the PM is trying to do that undermines our democratic system, are you perhaps exaggerating a little?

The Dury Trinity explained;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEUX9k0npgA&feature=related

(top of the class Crabstix!)

Fri, 2012-06-15 10:22 — CrabStiX (not verified)

I think that will probably be the Ian Dury Trinity... Sex and Drugs and Rock & Roll!

Mon, 2012-06-18 13:08 — David S Wilson (not verified)

Judging from the number of fatalities at the hands of the sex, drugs and rock and roll trinity - the hope of eternal life seems slim and less you are going to be pickled in vodka.

Mon, 2012-06-18 13:25 — jankaas (not verified)

i see that you also without a sense of humour. and naively unaware of the number of people murdered in the name of religion. perhaps you could do with a little Trinity David?
may shock you to think that the Dury Trinity recognises caffeine and the odd glass of wine as a "drugs", holding hands with your partner as "sex", and living your life to the full as "rock 'n' roll".
it's only your limited imagination that forced you to draw the wrong conclusions...? lighten up already.

Thu, 2012-06-14 16:52 — Raymond Ingrey (not verified)

The Church of England was always a fudged affair from the begining.
We had wars to rid Britain of Catholic influence and dogma but at the same time the high church still practiced many of the same rituals. The Anglican Church has always tried to be all things to all men and it's natural evolution is to be a spokesman for other religions.
I do thank Protestant ideas for freeing me from the belief in a supernatural being and the Church of England for giving me the freedom of thought in many other aspects of my life.
The Anglican Church seems to manage the disintegration of the God belief better than most. Hopefully while there are still humans that need the crutch of a relgion to get through their day the C of E does a reasonable job.
My fears for the future are rooted in the type of christianity that we see practised in the USA where it's leaders are about money and power and less on Christian virtues and inclusion.

Thu, 2012-06-14 16:33 — Barry Thomas (not verified)

In Wales many of us were brought up on updated versions of .William Morgan's 1588 Bible in Welsh

Thu, 2012-06-14 15:34 — protexfor

Classic Speaking: to be British was to be Protestant. From Ascorbic Acid http://www.protexinternational.com

Thu, 2012-06-14 15:34 — John Cheese (not verified)

Something will always end up guiding a people/nation. Choose wisely...

Fri, 2012-06-15 06:52 — John Donovan (not verified)

God is good all the time. Just pray to Him what you want to happen and He will grant it if you have faith in Him.

_____________
toronto personal trainer
winalite review

Sun, 2012-06-24 14:27 — Malt (not verified)

God doesn't grant selfish, greedy wishes, however much you believe in him.

Fri, 2012-06-15 18:15 — jankaas (not verified)

so if a person doesn't have their prayer answered it is simply because they don't have sufficient faith in God?
seems ever so harsh if it's true. maybe He sets the bar too high;

http://www.skepdic.com/lourdes.html

Lourdes has a "success rate" of around 1 in 3 million......and you reckon because those millions of poor so and so's didn't have enough faith. for shame.

Sun, 2012-06-24 14:32 — Malt (not verified)

Jankaas
You put me to shame, I meant "Him". You of course gave Him His respectful capital. Youre a secret spiritualist!

Fri, 2012-06-15 10:44 — Deludeone (not verified)

That's fine as far as it goes. However first you have to prove there is a God. Then you have to prove that your God created the universe. Then, that your God is good and actually listens and can affect reality.

Faith claims, or religious truth claims, are nothing but claiming that things that you do not know, and can never know are true. Thiat is just pretending. There is no difference between faith and a child's comfort blanket.

If there is a supernatural being that can interfere with the real world, where is the evidence?

If there is a supernatural being that is unable to interfere with reality where's the relevance?

Sun, 2012-06-24 14:42 — Malt (not verified)

@Deludeone

No one "has to" prove God exists.

There's plenty of evidence that He exists within Spiritualist churches, that there is an Afterlife. I get deceased relatives coming through mediums all the time, telling me what I thought the day before! Likewise, I get messages for others which have no meaning for me, but mean so much for someone else in the room.

We've had important universal messages from higher minds in Spiritworld telling us that there will be enormous changes in the coming years, dark forces to be overcome and how the world will become more spiritual after that.

Fri, 2012-06-15 10:28 — CrabStiX (not verified)

I know someone whose partner was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in the brain. This person prayed to god that their partner should not die. They did not die, so it seems to them that god answered their prayer. However, the person has been left severely disabled suffering from near constant epileptic fits and other complications and impairments. The moral being be careful what you pray for.

Sun, 2012-06-24 15:34 — Malt (not verified)

Crabstix
I also heard of someone asking for a healing, and the prayer was answered, only for them to be left with another chronic condition which they hadn't asked about. When asking for healing, it's important to ask for whole body healing. Mind you that can take longer, needing a number of healing sessions. If the illness is of an imminent life-threatening nature, people tend to concentrate on that, and forget the rest, or side effects. Then there's karma, so I'm not sure if all the healing can be granted.

God can only heal what's asked for and according to karmic law. That's the key. You have to be earnest, sincere, and thorough. Then you have to thank Him and accept the gift of whatever healing has been bestowed. It's important to keep praying, keep believing it can happen. If you don't accept the healing once bestowed, it can be worse, not better.
You can ask God for a lot of things, healing for yourself, healing for others, help with situations, protection, calmness, success, as long as it's sincere, going to be of good use. Why else would you ask God for anything if not for the common good? Otherwise people just go and do what they want anyway. He's granted us free will, but it's up to us to choose the right path. Being selfish and greedy may serve us individually in this life, but where will we be in the next? In a very painful situation, having to account for our actions.
My friend prays twice a day for absent healing for many people on a healing list, which goes around the world by internet, there are two hundred thousand people praying for the same people twice a day. That's dedication. In a world of 7billion, though, it needs more people.
Mother Theresa never missed her prayer times, because she knew how important it is to talk to God and ask for help. Being good, honest and sincere has got a dirty image because of those who like to be bad. It's harder to be good than to be bad. It's not hard to keep faith, because once you're spiritually aware, there's no going back. It's the responsibility it brings with it. Sometimes you just want a day off! But it's good to rest, recharge your batteries. Sometimes Spirits forget that and are clambering around you all the time, wishing to communicate. They want to communicate so much, some poor person who died in a traffic accident was trying to get me to phone his family, but the area code was all wrong...
Anyway, be aware that there is more good than bad, otherwise the world would be in utter chaos right now. Dark forces are trying to start WW3, but we're praying daily for it not to happen. Some people want the population reduced, but it's not necessary. Deserts can be made green, crops can grow in the wilderness. No one need starve. If you go to www.whitefeather.gov.uk, click on THRIVE down the left-hand list, you'll see a video for free about how there's enough and free energy for all. God bless.

Fri, 2012-06-15 12:47 — jankaas (not verified)

so why did God give that person a cancerous tumor in the brain in the 1st place, and then to only sort of cure it a bit? does this God know what He is doing...? seems ever so far fetched and random, but indeed God may be a bit of an amateur or attention seeker if this is supposed to be an example of His Omnipotence and Omniscience.
if not what have i missed about this desperately sad and touching anecdote?

Fri, 2012-06-15 10:28 — CrabStiX (not verified)

Thu, 2012-06-14 15:05 — bobbyOO (not verified)

I remember in high school after learning about the reformation in history having to explain to other people in my class the differences between protestants and catholics. They themselves didn't even know what they were if they had been religious. I myself thought I came from methodists and then I found out that my nan was married in a church of england church so I have no idea myself (not that it matters now as I'm an atheist).

Thu, 2012-06-14 14:03 — Steve Jenkins (not verified)

So much writing about the Church of England is sadly undermined by a refusal to recognise the true nature of the Church. I realise everything else has to be one thing or the other these days but it just does not work with churches. The CofE is not Catholic. It is not Protestant. It is catholic reformed by the protestant tradition. Hence, if you classify it as either protestant or as catholic, it will never meet you expectations.