In the spring of 2018, a small one-day conference took place to consider how the Christian Church should respond to climate change as part of the Church’s mission to care for creation. Knowing that invitations to participate had been extended to members of other denominations, The Church of England’s lead bishop on environmental issues opened his key-note speech by asking the Anglicans in the room to identify themselves. Immediately the voice of a local curate’s wife was heard calling from the back: “Define Anglican?!” Whilst anyone might take this request as an indication of the plurality of identities in the Anglican Communion, within the Church of England today one could describe it as something of a distress call. At that conference many of the of the Church of England attendees may have felt they had more in common with those representing the non-conformist churches or the Roman Catholic church rather than each other. 

It might be tempting to view the pluralities within the Church of England as evidence of a fragmenting institution, no longer able to define itself, consistently fracturing into smaller tribes who continually look outwards towards denominations more like them. With a Book of Common Prayer which is continually falling out of use, church plants being opened within existing parish boundaries, and a plethora of theological positions, one might wonder what holds the Established Church together. However, in choosing to reject the metanarrative of deepening divisions, one can find an opportunity to view the English State Church as a working model for that which many (but not all) of its congregations proclaim every Sunday: ‘the one holy catholic(k) Church.’ 

In his monograph ‘The Church’, Hans Küng identifies the tension between the catholic creeds and the nature of Christianity. Highlighting the participation of over two hundred churches in the World Council of Churches, he asked “Can it be denied that there is not one Church but many?” (Küng:1967). Whilst his concern that the plurality of denominations undermines the notion of a universal church is earnest, it belies a belief that a singular church requires institutional cohesion. This same desire for singularity (perhaps for political rather than theological reasons) has been a significant part of the history of the Church of England. This is, in part, why a Book of Common Prayer was devised, and why Elizabeth I sought a religious settlement in the early months of her reign: to establish a uniformity of doctrine and order. However, history has repeatedly shown that attempts to unite the Church of England through uniformity always leaves division: The Book of Common Prayer went through multiple changes within its first century as debates regarding its theology continued; the Wesley Brothers tried to call the English people to a life of holiness, but their followers ultimately fractured from the Established Church;, Keble, Froude and Newman attempted to bring Evangelicals and High Church devotees together as part of the ‘one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ in England, but their campaign ultimately led to further fragmentation and departures for Rome. One might argue that since its inception, and despite all best efforts, the Church of England has never enjoyed a consistent, cohesive nature. 

Today, one might find such a plurality of practices and beliefs across several Church of England churches in any given city. If I consider a two-mile radius from a central point in my nearest city, I can describe an amazing spread of theologies and practices in different Anglican Churches. There is the Evangelical church who eschew vestments in favour of smart suits, advocate a complementarian theology, and stress that one must be worthy in order to receive communion. Nearby is a Liberal High Church, where a woman dressed in cassock-alb and stole presides at the Eucharist every week, inviting all to come and receive the elements. Going in the opposite direction we find the large Charismatic Evangelical Church, with a team of musicians and pastors spread across a platform and a designated area for prayer, where hands are laid on individuals who want healing for either their body or spirit. Two-minutes’ walk away is a church which will not recognise the ordination of women, where the priest says Mass daily at an east-facing altar, regularly hears confessions and fully subscribes to the ‘Seven Sacraments’ rather than two dominical sacraments and five sacramental practices. The BCP is not used in any of these churches’ primary services. 

What then holds the disparate practices and theologies in the Church of England together? One might argue that it is our episcopal system, with diocesan bishops acting as focal points, drawing all the differing strands together, with clergy fulfilling their vows to be obedient “In all things lawful and honest”. However, since the first ordinations of women in 1994, it has been possible for parish churches which do not recognise their ministry to request the oversight of a bishop who has not participated in such ordinations. For the same reasons, it is difficult to argue that communion binds the Church of England together, with those same parishes now only willing to receive from certain clergy, sometimes excluding even their diocesan bishops since the consecration of the first woman to the episcopal order. Indeed the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have recently announced they will not be consecrating bishops themselves, a decision seemingly driven by tensions prior to the consecration of Bishops Ruth Bushyager and Will Hazlewood. Arguably this change in practice has been made in order to allow the consecration to take place by bishops “with whom [the candidate] is in full sacramental communion.” (http://www.forwardinfaith.com/fullposts.php?id=280&fbclid=IwAR3GB63fWTXlKoIqygCzxybsynG0o9VONbzAuIUVSwTXyj_6LbVkO5mlQdw)

With such deep divisions concerning fundamental elements of Anglican identity (episcopal leadership and shared communion), and not even the commonality of a BCP, how can we even begin to describe the Church of England as a working model for the ‘one holy catholic Church’? 

First, we should define what the Anglican Church believes when we affirm this credal position. As members of a ‘Protestant’ church (to a greater or lesser extent), we cannot affirm that this should be a single institution, as Küng insinuates, but rather that this is an affirmation of the invisible church, which despite differences in its visible form is united in its desire to follow the teachings and example of Christ. There are then perhaps two further elements to be considered in relation to the Church of England specifically. The first of these is that, as we have already established, like the worldwide church, the Church of England is deeply divided and highly pluralistic, to the point that many of its members personally disagree with the creedal statements. The second element is that despite these differences, and the animosity of the past, the majority of the Church of England’s members recognise each other as Christians. Whilst many of us may wish our beloved partners in the gospel held different views, we would rather see them change their minds than have parish churches breaking away from the denomination. We may wish we could recreate the Church in our own image, but we would never deny those we disagree with their identity as members of the Church of England.  

The cynic might observe all this and come to the conclusion that whilst this may be, to a greater or lesser extent, true, what truly holds the Church of England together is the overall security it provides through its financial systems, parish structures, and place within the English constitution (the place of churches being different in the other nations of the United Kingdom). It is worth noting that whilst there are multiple identities within other episcopal churches, without the benefits of establishmentarianism, schisms appear to be more significant than any attempts have been in England. In this case, it could be said that Küng is right in his belief that what unites a Church is institutional, and that the Church of England is a singular, yet divided, church amongst many, rather than a reflection of the universal church. Martyn Percy’s claim that the “elixir that will sustain the [Anglican] Communion will be to find unity without imposing uniformity” can, and one might argue, should, be applied to the Church of England (Percy:2005). Furthermore, in his first presidential address to General Synod, the Most Revd Stephen Cottrell stated “I believe that God is calling us to be a church of glorious and profligate diversity” (https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Presidential%20Address%20-%20General%20Synod%20July%202020%20.pdf).  If the Church of England is ever disestablished it will only be a unity built on grace and love that will hold it together; attempts to self-define itself through the imposition of rules will be the catalyst of schism. If it were to hold together, with no legal benefits, and rooted in a filial love which recognises each other’s faith, perhaps it would then be a true model of pluralistic unity for the one, holy catholic Church.