A response to Colin Buchanan

This short piece answers Colin Buchanan's reply, and it closes a three part exchange on establishment that ran across two issues of the journal.

Timothy Yates begins by thanking Buchanan for engaging the argument at the level of evidence rather than assertion, and then takes up the two main lines of criticism. On the historical question, he returns to the sources and argues that the evangelical support for establishment was more considered than Buchanan allows, and that it rested on theological conviction rather than inertia.

On the practical questions of parliamentary governance and episcopal appointment, Yates concedes more ground. He does not claim that the present arrangements are ideal, only that they are capable of reform, and that the alternatives carry their own risks. A church that is formally detached from the nation may gain independence and lose something harder to name.

The response is brief by design. Its value lies less in winning the argument than in demonstrating how a serious disagreement can be narrowed, with each writer stating plainly what the other has shown and where the remaining difference lies.

The exchange as a whole

Read together with the two earlier articles, this reply completes a model of courteous and rigorous debate. Anvil published it as a contribution to a question that has never quite left the Church of England, and that returns whenever the relationship between church and state is tested.

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