Surely we should disestablish?

Colin Buchanan wrote this reply to Timothy Yates's defence of establishment, and it is a reply rather than a rejection. Buchanan accepts the good faith of the earlier argument while disputing both its history and its conclusions.

His first move is historical. Yates had claimed a substantial strand of twentieth century evangelical opinion in favour of retaining the link between church and state. Buchanan questions whether that strand was as strong or as representative as it is made to appear, and suggests that a good deal of apparent support for establishment was really acquiescence.

His second move is practical. Two features of establishment come in for particular scrutiny: the role of Parliament in the church's governance and the method by which bishops are appointed. On both counts Buchanan argues that the arrangement places the church's leadership in the hands of people and processes that are not accountable to the church, and that no amount of courtesy in the working relationship can disguise the difficulty.

The article does not pretend that disestablishment would be simple. Buchanan is clear that it would raise hard questions about property, patronage, chaplaincies and the church's place in national ceremonies. His contention is that these are questions the church should be willing to face, and that the burden of proof properly rests on those who wish to keep things as they are.

In the same issue

Timothy Yates offers a short response to this article, and the exchange as a whole is one of the clearest examples in the journal of an argument being carried forward across several issues.

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