There was a time when the news that the heir to the throne could refuse the post of “supreme governor” in the Church of England would have caused an earthquake. Bishops would cry all night while theologians worried. Was the Reformation of 1534 in vain?
Gossip from the latest royal scoop, reported in the Daily Mail, suggests Prince William isn’t much of a devotee and is having trouble accepting his father’s coronation. This isn’t worth the shrug. Maybe the prince is just a normal person.
The coronation was a shock to anyone who took the British monarchy even remotely seriously. He presented Britain’s head of state as serving God rather than the British people. The priests secretly splashed him with holy oil like a Crusader king. Nothing suggested that King Charles was the embodiment of democracy, much less episcopal hierarchy.
Less than half the population of England and Wales now calls themselves Christian. Nearly 30 years ago, Charles first expressed concern about being expected to represent a multicultural, multi-denominational society while showing such devotion to a particular denomination. He wanted to be a “defender of the faith” rather than a “defender” of the faith. This admirable ambition did not reflect well on his coronation (though Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim representatives greeted him after the ceremony).
Hereditary monarchy is a dubious enough concept that it’s not religious nonsense. If the Prince of Wales wants his coronation to be at least reasonably modern – legitimized by popular consent and applause – he should start doing so and planning now. At least he could place it in a secular venue like the Westminster parliament. This much should be within his prerogative.
Of course, none of this is very important. If the British public really love this kind of medieval mysticism, who can complain? They seem to love it here, as do the tourists. The answer has traditionally been that the monarchy must be built on firmer foundations in case an unfit monarch arrives or a constitutional crisis arises. From George III to Edward VIII to Princess Diana, the British crown has shown it can withstand such upsets. But the claim that the monarch rules only by the grace of God will one day risk appearing absurd and dishonorable. It is certainly more true that the reign should also include the supreme governorship of the Church of England, which is now a minority sect.
This means something different for a king. What this means for the church is completely different. Its “establishment,” defended under oath by the monarch, gives it an extraordinary status. It is the only British institution granted special membership of parliament through its 26 bishops. The church has its own parliament, the General Synod, which Westminster respects. His wealth is enormous, most of it coming from estates donated to him by the Norman and Tudor monarchies.
As the Anglican religion loses its support, its role in national ceremonies should diminish. The proportion of the church in the British population is in single digits and is decreasing. It would be wise for both the ruler and the church to accept this and embrace the abolition of the state. Gladstone discussed the possibility of “separation” of church and state in 1885, and the issue returned to public debate periodically throughout the 20th century. It was a measure of the (declining) importance of the church that abolition was never adopted.
Relating to: Defender of all faiths? Coronation focuses on King Charles’ beliefs
The result is an ailing church supported by 108 diocesan hierarchies, 42 diocesan bureaucracies and thousands of medieval buildings, half of which are effectively redundant but are tasked with maintaining them. Only the great medieval cathedrals showed some rise, helped by their importance as oases of cultural activity in much of England.
What has become desperate is the fate of the parish churches. In days past they and the areas around them were centers of neighborhood activity and prosperity. George Carey, a former archbishop, once likened them to the NHS, a kind of spiritual emergency response department found in every village and town. Not anymore. Despite often occupying a prominent position at the center of their communities, thousands now lie dark, empty and locked every year.
The Church of England cannot overcome this magnificent legacy. Other European countries have handed over their historic buildings to local governments with taxing authority to maintain and reuse them. New uses must be found for churches in England that will breathe new life into their communities, otherwise churches will eventually go the way of medieval castles and become piles of stone. Perhaps King William, while surrendering his seals of office as supreme governor, could also hand over his churches to the tutelage of the state.