guardian.co.uk wrote:The whited sepulchres of Anglicanism

Bishops praising religious liberty are as phony as Thatcherites praising compassion

o Theo Hobson
o guardian.co.uk, Saturday 6 March 2010 10.00 GMT

I agree with Richard Harries’ defence of faith groups who want to conduct civil partnerships in places of worship. But I really dislike the way he poses as a defender of religious liberty. We Lords-spiritual have no right to oppose them holding civil ceremonies in places of worship, he loftily says: “it would harm no one, and it accords with their deepest religious convictions. Religious freedom is indivisible”. This is laughable. For an Anglican bishop to say this is like a Thatcherite saying “compassion must always come first”.

The Church of England has many things going for it: it has lovely buildings, lovely music, lovely liturgies, lovely literature, and a lovely habit of theological vagueness. But it does not have the moral high ground in terms of religious liberty. Indeed it is founded on the denial of religious liberty. This is too often obscured by its reputation for “liberalism”, which is based in the fact that it is more liberal than certain other churches on certain issues, and manages to find a few nice people to say nice things on Thought for the Day.

According to the vague, lazy orthodoxy about our history, the C of E is deeply entwined in the story of British liberalism. From the time of the first Elizabeth, did this Church not nurture the distinctive English tradition of toleration, pluralism, fair play? Did it not reject the authoritarian ways of another church we won’t name, and choose freedom? No, actually. It is truer to say that our tradition of liberty arose in opposition to the established Church.

Please forgive a short history lesson. When calls for toleration emerged in the early seventeenth century, the Church blocked them with such arrogance that it lost the support of Parliament, and was brought down along with the king. When that revolution failed, and the established Church was restored, it persecuted those who called for toleration more fiercely than ever. According to Diarmaid MacCulloch, this episode puts a “major question-mark against the complacent English boast of a national history of tolerance.” Ah, but didn’t this change with the Glorious Revolution of 1688? No. Non-Anglicans were still barred from holding public office, and denied the right to marry in their places of worship, and so on.

But this illiberal side of establishment was dismantled in the nineteenth century, surely? Up to a point. Yes, the laws that made non-Anglicans second-class citizens were gradually repealed (despite bitter opposition from the Church, of course). But discrimination limped on into the twentieth century. And the Church retained its core privileges: the link with the monarchy and the right of its main bishops to sit in the Lords. In the twentieth century the Church pulled off an amazing PR coup: it showed such an impressively liberal face to the world that its structural illiberalism was almost forgotten. The mask has recently slipped somewhat.

I will be accused of trying to re-fight old battles, with oddball stridency, but it has to be said: establishment is intrinsically at odds with religious liberty. This institution is still founded on the principle that it has the right and duty to impose religious uniformity on the nation, other religious groups being a threat to national cohesion. Of course it has not used this right very aggressively in recent times, but nor has it renounced it, repented of it.

But come on, you may say, in practice isn’t the Church free of this history? On one level, sure: plenty of Anglicans are nice liberals. But even the very nicest are theologically guilty. By serving an established Church they tacitly declare that Christianity belongs to our pre-liberal past, that it is fundamentally at odds with liberty. This is in my view a betrayal of the gospel, and the smug shows of liberalism from the likes of Harries cannot mask it.

The Church of England has many things going for it: it has lovely buildings, lovely music, lovely liturgies, lovely literature, and a lovely habit of theological vagueness. But it does not have the moral high ground in terms of religious liberty. Indeed it is founded on the denial of religious liberty. This is too often obscured by its reputation for “liberalism”, which is based in the fact that it is more liberal than certain other churches on certain issues, and manages to find a few nice people to say nice things on Thought for the Day.