Should We Disestablish?

For much of the twentieth century, evangelical opinion in the Church of England leaned toward disestablishment. The case seemed straightforward: a church tied to the state must compromise its independence, and its leaders must share authority with a Parliament that does not profess the faith it governs.

This article by Timothy Yates takes the opposite line. It is not a defence of the status quo for its own sake, but an attempt to recover a strand of evangelical thought that saw real value in the link between church and nation. Yates argues that the case for disestablishment has often been made from assumption rather than evidence, and that the historical record is more favourable to establishment than its critics allow.

The heart of the argument concerns the kind of influence the church is meant to exercise. A disestablished church speaks from the margins and is heard, if at all, as one voice among many. An established church is entangled with the nation in ways that are costly and ambiguous, but that also keep the gospel in public view and preserve a formal place for Christian worship in national life.

Yates is careful not to overstate the point. He acknowledges the real difficulties, including the manner in which bishops are appointed and the church's dependence on parliamentary processes. His claim is narrower: that disestablishment would settle some problems while creating others, and that evangelicals should weigh the whole account rather than repeat a slogan.

Why it was published

The article opened a genuine debate in the pages of Anvil. A later issue carried a direct reply from Colin Buchanan, and Yates answered it in turn. Together the three pieces form a compact case study in how disagreement can be conducted in print, with argument rather than assertion, and with both sides willing to be answered.

The full text of the article is held in the printed journal. Enquiries about access can be made to the editor.