Across the pond

It was no surprise to me when the majority of the members of the Church of England synod clapped the Archbishop of Canterbury when he used his keynote speech to deal with the rumpus which was aroused by his previous oration on the inevitability of some form of sharia law in multi-cultural Britain. There was nothing fake in the applause he was given. Most of the bishops and most of the clergy  repect the man and what he is trying to do. And it was not at all difficult for the whole synod to demonstrate that they were not going to be rail-roaded by the media. Those who had intended to ask for his resignation decided not to press their case in public or were persuaded to do so by the officials of Church House.

The fiercest opposition to Williams comes from the new Christians amongst the laity, who are emotionally more in tune with the Christian right in the US. They want no truck with Muslims such is their born again zeal for their own doctrines. They don’t show much charity towards those of their number who happen to be gay.

But amongst the realists of all persuasions amongst the Church is the problem of what kind of leader to elect if Williams does resign. Should it be another evangelical like the previous Archbishop, Carey? On it should it a more articulate and less muddled liberal like the archbish whom Carey succeeded?

The job is an impossible one. And it will remain impossible while the Church remains the established Church, even though the majority of the British electorate are not regular church goers. And of the regular churchgoers there are almost as many Roman Catholics and Muslims as there are Church of England communicants.

The fact that the church is established means that it does not have control over its own affairs. The archbishop is not elected by the Synod. He (or, less likely, she) is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. What usually happens when there is a vacancy is that the church hierarchy submit two names to Prime Minister, one of whom is their preference. These names are passed on by the Prime Minister, along with the nods and winks as to which of the two the church really wants.

But Prime Ministers do not always do what is expected of them and when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister she did not allow herself to be railroaded into putting a liberal, who might publicly question her policies, to Lambeth Palace.

Rowan Williams did not ‘apologise in his speech on Monday. He rephased his comments, leaving the situation as confused as before. He wants some kind of recognition of sharia law, but what kind and how is unclear. But if the church were disestablished this would not matter.

And it might send a signal across the pond. The American constitution does separate the spiritual from the secular, and most Americans respect this, even though the majority of the population are declared Christians with a much higher percentage of regular church attendance than in Britain. But in the last seven years American decision making has been strongly influenced by the Christian right, who have been amongst Bush’s most fervent supporters.