Yes. The English laws are founded in Christian thinking and continue to shape social and political life.
For the reasons already given, namely the important and advantageous role the Church gets to play in society, I think we would be mad to let go of the position we have.
You know, a national church doesn't have to be a state church (as can be seen by the church of Scotland). If the Church of England were to become seperate from the state while remaining the national church, would that solve the problem of undue secular influence while preserving the Christian heritage?
My concerns about a State Church include how the Commons voted down the prayer book which the Church approved in 1927, as well as the pressure the government put on the Church recently regarding women bishops. I suppose being an American, I am used to the idea of separation of Church and State. I can only imagine what a State Church would look like in the USA today, having the Republicans and Democrats playing a role in its administration.
Certainly not. They should change. The monarchs have been some of the church of England's trouble in the past.
i respectfully disagree. i am no royalist. but i think if youre going to go to the trouble of setting up a king, it is perhaps the most orthodox thing to do to put the state's church under his patronage and protection, it's the way it's been done since constantine.
My understanding of this sort of issue from reading The Church in Crisis [Charles Moore, Gavin Stamp, A. N. Wilson] is that "Church" means the hierachy of the church often in opposition to the views of the "man in the pew" and the Commons may oppose the measure as it doesn't reflect the views of the ordinary church go-er. The commons voteing against a measure often should be applauded.
Dear Friend, It is the purpose of the Catholic Hierarchy to teach the faith as revealed by Christ, recorded in scripture and interpreted by the Early Fathers and Councils. At least that is as I understand it! To my mind this is the great failing of the Bishops of the Modern Church of England. The question is can they, or Rome be trusted to follow their callings and use the character delivered to them at their enthronement?
That is all very well, if all monarchs didn't interfere in the spiritual matters of the Church! The two best Anglican Monarchs, S . Charles and Elizabeth Ist did great work in preserving the ancient church in this country. Charles actually sacrificed his life in this cause. But apart from some early Saxon Kings and the above mentioned, the rest have not actually been shining lights of faith. William of Normand sacked all the Regular ,(Saxon) Bishops, Deans and Abbots, bringing in Continental ones who along with the papacy simply milked the Church. William of Orange was a Calvinist and had to keep an Army of Occupation to keep him safe. Both George I & II, were Brought up as Lutherans and used the Church to find places for their friends!
Well it seems that antidisestablishmentarianism is still alive and well! As an Australian where we cherish the separation of Church and State - we expect neither our leaders to be holy, nor our holy ones to lead. The Australian Constitution effectively guarantees pluralism. At the time of it's drafting that effectively, I believe, would have been understood to mean whatever denomination, and today is understood to be any religion. This has it's challenges and the Church has not always blossomed in such circumstances. None the less when we look at regimes where the integration of state and religion is in evidence it seems that there is a lot to be called into question, and I say that with regard to Christian History as much as it may also apply to other faith positions. Power is a great temptation and diverts our attention from mission. Do you think the English Parliament was the correct place to determine matters relating to the doctrine of transubstantiation? My votes is no!
If this is so you may want to check that your laws aren't like New Zealands where a town can become a city if it has a population of more that 20,000 (30,000 in your case) or... wait for it .. a Cathedral . This is how Nelson (and maybe Melbourne in your case)became a city with a population of only 8.000. Its my bet that if this is so it also has to be an Anglican cathedral and not one of those pluralistic religions like Roman Catholicism. Maybe not - but it's just as "not" as the general Synod that formulates these ideas. have you ever heard of the general synod canvassing the views of the "man in the pew" Many in Parliament see themselves as representing the man in the pew against the wishes of the general synod. This is why they voted against the changing of the 1662 B.o,C,P, the average church goer wanted to keep their legal right to use the 1662 book. What did the general synod do as a result, introduced a new "experimental " book to be tried out.