A Christian State? A Comment

Abstract

Dr. George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, told a congregation in Melbourne's St. Paul's Cathedral that he had recently received a letter addressed to Jesus Christ, care of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Heavenly Kingdom. It had been posted in the United States, but found its way to London. There, a postman, understandably a little unsure as to where the letter should go, had marked the envelope, Try Lambeth Palace!' Under the public law of England, his was actually a most reasonable course for a civil servant to take. The Church of England is established by law, so if any official question relating to God must be decided, the law presumes that the Church of England is best placed to answer it. The law in New Zealand and Australia is different. Even if the inherited public law in both countries requires the Head of State to be an Anglican,2 that is where the religious establishment ends. The public law is otherwise agnostic: it makes no judgment about the orthodox and heterodox, and it does not recognize an established church.3 In these countries, the envelope would lie in a dead letter office, and the correspondent would have been wiser to pray. I believe that an agnostic law is an important institution, and one worth preserving. My view does not assume that an agnostic law is incompatible with a Christian society, nor that the idea of a Christian society should not be pursued. It should be, but as T.S. Eliot thought, in countries like New Zealand, Australia and Canada, it will probably have