Each of these men of course had their own agenda. We are evangelical nonconformists, who by definition are zealous for the power of the gospel and the purity of the church. It must be on our agenda to seek to counter any obstacles to the gospel’s progress.

Why then should we protest against established religion?

The whole title ‘Church of England’ is of course a misnomer. The New Testament allows for two uses of ‘church’ – the local gathered church and the church universal, comprising all believers from every age. There is no such thing as a territorial church.

True churches are produced by the gospel. The Church of England was not produced by the gospel. It was not set up to proclaim the gospel. It is not defined by the gospel. It was borne of political expediency under Henry VIII and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that in many ways the Church of England exists to sanctify certain political and royal arrangements.

Edward Miall, editor of the ‘Nonconformist’ from 1841-1878, wrote:

‘I cannot recognise civil establishments of Christianity as organisations for the extension of Christ’s kingdom in any sense. They are not churches – they are merely political arrangements… They comprehend all the inhabitants of the land without distinction of character. They may be devoid of a single member whose heart is in living sympathy with God, as mirrored in the person and life of His Son, without losing one essential feature of their constitution.’

The presence of an established church creates confusion about what a Christian is when the ‘sacraments’ are dispensed indiscriminately. It creates allegiances which compromise the gospel, for example the clergy’s vows of obedience to heretical bishops. It has entrenched modernism.

Anglicanism is an enemy of the gospel, even if there are Anglicans who are its friends. The late nineteenth-century Congregationalist Thomas Binney (author of the hymn ‘Eternal Light’) concluded that ‘the Church of England destroys more souls than she saves’. Many, perhaps most of us would blush at such a statement. Yet Spurgeon agreed:

‘Our love to the good men in the Church is not less now than it was then, but we cannot longer spare them, for their equivocation, not to say falsehood, is ruining souls, and turning this nation to Popery and infidelity.’

Like Spurgeon we love the men while hating the system: ‘In our very hearts we feel the sincerest affection for our brethren in Christ, who are the salt… and the lights of their dark Church...’.

(Remember that Spurgeon was writing of an Anglican church which almost certainly contained more evangelical clergy than today.)

I am a devoted Royalist and have great regard for our Queen but it is a complete nonsense that she should be Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. Why should poor Charles be expected to maintain the position? The whole debate about whether he should rather be ‘Defender of Faiths’ is utterly irrelevant to the cause of true Christianity.

In various debates in the House of Lords, the bishops have conspicuously failed to uphold Biblical morality. A prime example is Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, who openly denies most of the fundamental gospel doctrines, and campaigns for the acceptance of homosexual behaviour. It has been left to others to hold the torch for Christian morality.

The Church of England has a favoured position in the media spotlight. James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, who has a name to be an evangelical, prevaricated dreadfully on the BBC’s ‘Question Time’ a few weeks ago when challenged on the issue of the church’s response to homosexuality. There are plenty of instances far worse than that.

It is pointless to cringe at the avowed liberalism of the Anglican hierarchy. We ought to be praying for the conversion of Church of England bishops and clergy and for the undermining, by legislative and other means, of her position in the nation’s life and institutions.

Our protest is against the spurious ‘folk religion’ that seems to flourish in the Anglican system, with its territorial view of the church, and the dominance of architecture, symbols and priestcraft. A great challenge facing those involved in gospel outreach is that we are not merely dealing with sinners but sinners who in many cases have absorbed a pseudo-Christianity which inoculates them against the truth.

What are we to do with such a hindrance to the gospel work? Of course nothing can hinder the Lord from saving by many or few. He is utterly sovereign. The heart of sinful man will naturally resist the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit will always be necessary.

We dare not let our hopes rest on the fact that there are still a few remnants of Christian tradition embedded in the fabric (debris?) of our national life. It is right to seek public righteousness and to expect justice from the government. But to do so on the basis of a Protestant establishment runs counter to historic Nonconformist thinking and to the gospel itself.

The late Herbert Carson wrote in Grace Magazine around the time of the controversy over the proposed visit of the Pope to Britain: ‘The end of the establishment would be a positive gain for the spread of the gospel. … Our task is not to bolster a sagging establishment in which in practice the reformed faith is relegated to an insignificant place, and religious pluralism openly enthroned … . We have greater aims in view – not only to counter the spread of Rome but to do so with the only effective weapon – the doctrines of grace.’