National, Not Established

The Future of the Church of England in the United Kingdom and the Place of Bishops in the House of Lords - A Briefing Paper for HM Government, UK.

Photo by Charles Givens on Unsplash

[An earlier, shorter version of this article was published in The Journal of Anglican Studies, May 2026]

Some Terms of Reference:

The Church of England is the established church of England, but not for the rest of the United Kingdom (UK). It is the only established Anglican church worldwide. The Anglican Church in Wales, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Church of Ireland operate independently. An ‘established’ church or religion is not necessarily the same as one that may be considered a ‘state’ or ‘national’ religion.

The British monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England,[1] and their 26 senior bishops, known as Lords Spiritual, have seats in the House of Lords. The Church of England is also ‘established’ in the three crown dependencies of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. The Dean of Jersey sits as a non-voting member of the States of Jersey, and the Bishop of Sodor and Man sits as a non-voting member of the Tynwald.[2]

A state religion, or official religion, is formally endorsed by a sovereign state. State religions benefit from government support, which may include official endorsement, public funding and recognition. Generally, these religions have greater rights and wider public responsibilities than other faiths in the country.[3]

An established church is recognised by the state as its official church and receives civil support. It cannot change its doctrines or practices without state consent and, in return, often enjoys financial support and special privileges. Church of England Measures require parliamentary oversight, whereas the Church of Scotland is self-governing. Historically, the establishment was opposed in parts of the UK where the population was not predominantly Anglican. As a result of political and religious pressure, the Church of England was disestablished in Ireland in 1871 and Wales in 1920.

The Church of England was established in the 1534 when King Henry VIII renounced papal authority. Until 1919, Parliament had legislative control. After this, a National Assembly was created, which was later replaced by a General Synod in 1969. The Church of England is represented in the House of Commons by a Second Church Estates Commissioner. This paper argues that the Church of England can remain the national faith of the English whilst ceasing to be established, thereby aligning with Anglicanism across the rest of the UK, Ireland, and the wider world.[4]

Bishops in the House of Lords:

Photo by Jomarc Nicolai Cala on Unsplash

On 15th June 2020, the House of Lords debated the government’s Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No 2) Regulations 2020. The bishop of Carlisle, the ‘lead bishop on health and social care’ in parliament (NB: for the Church of England, and representing no other body, and with no relevant qualifications, training or expertise for such a role in public life), spoke in favour of an amendment negating the regulations. In the subsequent vote, he and several other male bishops voted against the legislation.

Which people was the bishop representing in these debates? Certainly not women from Northern Ireland, forced to travel across the Irish Sea if they needed a termination. Was his opinion in line with the Church of England’s position, which says abortion, though regrettable, can be justified? It is not clear that it was. Was he representing the views of the wider English population? Not really. Yet he spoke and voted as of right. One cannot easily imagine a parallel universe in which a Roman Catholic bishop was always entitled to sit as one of the nine justices on the US Supreme Court and vote on abortion rights, including Roe v Wade. Yet the Church of England did just that in 2020 and repeated the action in debates in March 2026.[5]

The grounds of entitlement – and inevitable gift to the Church of England through being established – now look increasingly questionable. What is the role of one established denomination, and of only one nation, set within a devolved union of nations? Can bishops in the House of Lords authentically represent the plethora of opinions within their own denomination, let alone speak for the UK as a whole?

There are other pressing reasons to question the fitness and appropriateness of Church of England bishops to sit ‘as of right’ in the House of Lords. The bishops are not elected nor subject to any open democratic process of selection. Concerningly, they can be chosen through a closed ecclesiastical committee process that primarily serves internal church politics (e.g., selecting a Catholic or Evangelical bishop with conservative views on sexuality, gender, etc.) to ‘balance’ Church of England appointments.

Then there is representation – with the Church of England often arguing that the ‘Lords Spiritual’ stand for constituencies that might not otherwise have a voice, or the complexion of the House of Lords is somehow overlooked. This old canard suggests that the Church of England bishops enhance and complete the complexion of representation in the House of Lords. But a Church of England diocese is no kind of ‘constituency’ in any serious sense, and bishops cannot meaningfully claim to represent the wider population of their designated dioceses, as though they were some kind of unelected MP sitting in the House of Lords, holding surgeries that dealt with social issues that could then be aired and addressed. The public has a natural right to expect and know that those who legislate and vote in the House of Lords have the expertise and knowledge to perform such work. The Church of England no longer ensures this in its bishops. Correspondingly, there is also the nettle of contemporary episcopal intellectual quality and distinguished service in public life that must be grasped in any consideration of bishops continuing to sit in the House of Lords.

Even in the early postwar years, many bishops serving in the House of Lords were drawn from backgrounds in which they had served with distinction in the university sector (e.g., as professors), other spheres of education, the armed services, or other public fora. Contemporary bishops, with very rare exceptions, simply lack such grounding. Bishops demonstrably lack the expertise or experience that most other members of the House of Lords bring to debates. Bishops are not distinguished in law, academia, politics, economics, or even these days, necessarily in theology.

The entitlement and privilege of episcopal representation in the House of Lords have a very attenuated relationship with the qualities that would be sought in and seen as essential for others preferred to a peerage. It need hardly be stressed that to privilege one English denomination with 26 automatic seats in the House of Lords makes little sense in the context of a Parliament that is there for the whole of the UK.

Plainly, if senior faith representatives are seen as important to the composition of the House of Lords, then a system could be devised that is democratic, meritocratic, and applied putatively across the UK rather than privileging England and its Church of England bishops.

Furthermore, with the principle of hereditary peerage giving rights to sit in the House of Lords now effectively at an end, it is peculiar, if not perverse, that the principle of ‘ontological inheritance’ remains aloof from this reform. In the minds of most people, inheriting the power through one’s bloodline to sit in the upper chamber of the legislature in any country seems, at best, quaint and outright as undemocratic, elitist, and unconstitutionally hegemonic.[6]

If the argument of bloodline is now rejected for the House of Lords, then, by extension, a medieval concept of ‘ontological’ entitlement and inheritance becomes similarly problematic. The principles and problems of hereditary peerage are the same as those in the polity of ontology, if the person sitting in the House of Lords is there by an inherited quasi-mystical right, not by merit, public scrutiny or democratic mandate.

The canard that Monarchy, Coronation and Church are all intertwined and cannot be unravelled also fails at this juncture, because an established church is not needed across the rest of the UK. Constitutionally, the reigning monarch is the ‘Defender’, solely, of the Protestant Faith of the Church of England. Establishment is an English argument for the preferment and privilege of the Church of England. Yet the other home nations function perfectly well with national churches (e.g., the Church of Scotland, etc.) that are not “by law established”.

Establishment is an outdated artefact of medieval governance, a time when bishops wielded significant financial, civic, legal, and local political power. As with Ireland and Wales, once it was recognised that this was no longer the case for the Anglican churches, or was indeed unwelcome, their establishment ceased. England’s time for disestablishment has now arrived.

National Trends:

The statistics of churchgoing in 21st-century Britain make for sobering reading. There are 12,500 parishes in the Church of England. Even before the pandemic, only 33 of these recorded more than 100 under-16s attending church on a Sunday. That equates to a mere 0.26% of the parishes or less than one church per Anglican diocese (of which there are 42). The Church of England claims Anglicanism is a global fellowship of 88+ million. It will sometimes claim over 95 million.

But this figure counts 25 million ‘members’ of the Church of England in England when the usual Sunday attendance (uSa) is around 0.5-0. 6 million. Global Anglicanism probably has around 55 million regular attendees, placing it behind the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian denominations, and well behind the 1.4 billion Roman Catholics.

It is generally accepted that the Church of England membership numbers claimed may be close to double those of the actual attendees, which would be a maximum of around 1 million in a population of 55 million for England, so 1.82%. The time may now be ripe to “level up” and share ecclesiastical power and privilege. If proof of the problem were still needed, the recent national census in the UK, with its statistics on religious affiliation, made for uncomfortable reading.

For the first time in an England and Wales census, less than half of the population (46.2 per cent, or 27.5 million people) described themselves as Christian. This represents a 13.1 per cent decrease from 2011. As the Church Times noted,[7] Christianity in England is now a minority religion. The paradox for members of the Church of England is that, while the English population is primarily pro-equality and democratic, the established church remains rooted in hierarchies and autocracy

Likewise, statistics for the broader English population confirm the same: in baptisms, confirmations, weddings, and funerals, obsolescence has set in. One can pin the blame on either excessive theological particularity or perhaps on well-meant pastoral laxity. Or on bureaucratic inflexibility and complexity. But the lens of obsolescence helps us see that people move on to more convenient or preferable options. And there is no penalty for foregoing the previous options.

Internally, within the Church of England, the increasing internal haemorrhage of clergy and laity - volunteers who were once the backbone of the local church and served as wardens, PCC members and other responsibility-bearing roles, etc - shows that people have had enough.[8] What once seemed integral shifted in a few generations to being optional. And it is now becoming obsolete.[9]

The Church of England has 16,000 church buildings – slightly more than one-third of the total number of church buildings in Great Britain. To put that in a broader context, there are fewer than 12,000 village halls, and the same again for post offices (11,800). The Church of England also controls 4,700 primary-junior schools in England (out of a total of 16,700), with an average of 280 pupils per school. So again, like its churches, church schools are distinguished by small attendance numbers whilst being quite widespread. These networks of modest-sized schools and small churches are costly to maintain.

David Voas, the eminent sociologist at University College London, has been sceptical of recent reports suggesting a resurgence in young men attending church services.[10] Voas suggested that, at best, this represented a mere pause in the relentless collapse of English religion. Furthermore, the impending decline in Christian affiliation is expected to be far steeper than what many churches and denominations are currently experiencing.[11] Even the most optimistic church leaders are cautious when discussing recovery. Others quietly opine that any rumours of revival represent another PR-led “thesis that directs the facts”.[12] The hierarchy of the Church of England certainly has form in that regard, and the relationship it has tried to foster between rhetoric and reality has steadily eroded in recent decades.[13]

Were proof of the gap between rhetoric and reality needed, consider the case of the Church of England’s Bristol diocese. In recently publishing its new brochure, Statement of Needs for its Bishop, it clearly did not find it strange that there are almost as many people working in diocesan HQ (80) as there were clergy serving in the diocese (90), effectively giving a 1:1 ratio of administrators to clergy.[14] The diocese has 193 parishes (a different figure – 166 – is cited earlier, suggesting that the authors may not be clear about the difference between a parish and a benefice). The diocese claims to be “serving 1.1 million people” with a “worshipping community” of 11,000, which amounts to just 1% of the population.

The Statement of Needs brochure reports that the diocese has an income of £11.8 million and an expenditure of £16.6 million, which represents a recurring loss of £5 million per year, which may be a concern.[15] To fund the diocese in line with its expenditure, each worshipper would therefore need to contribute around £1,500 per year. Most of the members of this “worshipping community” are of retirement age, which raises further questions about how the gap between income and expenditure is to be closed by those with (largely) fixed incomes.

Church of England ‘Culture’:

Photo by Marcin Nowak on Unsplash

There are also serious concerns regarding the Church of England’s distinct internal culture and the undoubted urgency any government faces in reforming it when confronted by the lack of alignment between ecclesial and public values. Like any faith group, the Church of England has every right to protect, project and promote its distinct culture to the English. But not from a position of legislative privilege, and there are, in any case, significant issues to address if that discrete culture is increasingly at odds with statutory law and basic standards in public life. Specifically, the Church of England is currently unaligned in the following fields:

1. On same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ the Church of England is out of step with the national mood and English law. The claim to be a ‘national church’ when the dissonance and gap are so great with the wider population is problematic. It is even more so for an established church, where privilege and entitlement ensure that the Church of England has no accountability to the nation it purports to serve.[16]

2. On accountability and transparency more generally, the Church of England bishops are manifestly non-compliant with Nolan Standards for Public Life, and effectively operate as “a law unto themselves”. No peers of the realm, or indeed other professions or public services, operate without some means of independent oversight that can call the individuals or body to account. For the Lords Spiritual to be seated in the House of Lords and yet answerable to nobody, in any kind of meaningful, modern democratic sense, is unconscionable.[17]

3. On gender, the Church of England operates with “two integrities” which permit lawful discrimination within the church. Whilst discrimination on grounds of gender can be argued as a “protected characteristic” in a faith, it is highly questionable whether this is fit for purpose in a national church, let alone an established one. On what other grounds would members of the House of Lords permit discrimination amongst themselves? None, I venture. Yet the Church of England Lords Spiritual affirm discrimination on the sophistry of “two integrities”.[18]

4. On safeguarding, the Church of England still resists scrutiny and trustworthy professional independent regulatory oversight, despite legions of scandals coming to light, and there is no sign of these stopping.[19] In 2024, The Economist noted that the 27 recommendations in the Makin Report echoed similar suggestions from numerous safeguarding reports over the past 40 years, which the Church of England had either ignored or dismissed.[20] There is merit to the criticism of The Economist. For example, the Church of England established an Independent Safeguarding Board in 2021, only to disband it in 2023 for being “too independent”. The Church of England is averse to being subject to external regulatory authorities.

The 2021 census results for England and Wales have yet to be fully understood, but given that many congregations are reporting significant declines in attendance after Covid, it seems unlikely that there will be any silver linings this century. A relevant comparison can be drawn from the recent 2021 Australian census, where a voluntary question on religion received a 93 per cent response rate. This census revealed a near doubling of the proportion of people identifying as having ‘no religion’. Less than half (44 per cent) of the respondents identified as Christian, a decrease from 61 per cent in 2011. Both Roman Catholic and Anglican affiliations have seen steep declines, dropping to 20 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively (Roman Catholic affiliations have historically been the larger group). We note that Australian figures lag behind the British experience, where recent surveys indicate that over 50 per cent of people are willing to declare that they have no religion.

One of the significant challenges facing all UK churches is that their decline is driven not by ideological hostility but by indifference. The forces contributing to this decline operate quietly and without notice. Aside from organised secularism and secularisation, which churches often overstate, there are no obvious adversaries for them to rally against. There is a rapid obsolescence in denominational-institutional identity, though local pastoral ministry retains its social and spiritual capital.

Conclusion:

The most serious and compelling case for change comes from the House of Lords itself. On 29^th April 2026, the last of the hereditary peers was removed from the upper chamber.[21] The Speaker, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, thanked the peers for their service, spanning almost a thousand years of parliamentary history. Whilst one may rue the end of an era, the principle of inheriting substantial political and legislative power for public life, solely by virtue of one’s bloodline and elite ancestry, has rightly ended. Likewise, we argue that ancient and modern quasi-mystical versions of automatic entitlement to seats in the House of Lords are no longer fit for purpose. Ontological descent is not straightforward,[22] and even more so when it leads to establishment as of right, and the inheritance of powers and privileges that can be wielded in the House of Lords, when democratic processes and even meritocratic concerns have not been observed. (It is hard enough for the British monarchy to bear the presumed ontological value and assumed spiritual weight of their numinous roles and office).[23] By extension, if the hereditary peers have been removed from the House of Lords, the Lords Spiritual – who, let us remember, also inherit their seats – should likewise be retired.

Plainly, whatever the nostalgia and history, current arrangements for automatically placing Church of England bishops in the House of Lords no longer resonate with the public, nor do they make any sense in terms of British politics and society. In recent times, we have witnessed several appointment processes for senior diocesan bishops manipulated to secure a candidate who would represent internal party interests in the church (often at odds with normal and established social values), without due regard for their fitness to serve in public life.[24] Individual appointments to Diocesan Sees notwithstanding, it should by now be apparent that English bishops have no mandate to vote on Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland affairs, and should therefore already be recusing themselves from debates that are outside the scope of English interests.[25]

In safeguarding, the Church of England continues to resist meaningful external scrutiny and is averse to trustworthy, professional, independent regulatory oversight. Despite legions of abuse scandals coming to light, there is no sign that this will stop.[26] In 2024, The Economist noted that the 27 recommendations in the Makin Report echoed similar suggestions from numerous safeguarding reports over the past 40 years, which the Church of England had either ignored or dismissed.[27] There is merit to the criticism of The Economist. For example, the Church of England established (what appeared to be) an ‘Independent Safeguarding Board’ in 2021, only to summarily disband it in 2023 when it showed signs of becoming “too independent and survivor-focussed”. The established Church of England is averse to being subject to external regulatory authorities, despite all other public utilities, services and industries being subject to meaningful accountability. The Church of England maintains its aloof status.

A constitutional crisis is now emerging over the Crown, the Church, and the Constitution, particularly amid a significant decline in Church of England affiliation and growing cultural disenchantment with its leaders. Over the past few decades, the Church of England has invested substantial effort into branding, marketing, mission initiatives, and reorganisation. However, evangelistic efforts, such as the Call to the Nation launched by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1975 and the Church’s “Decade of Evangelism” from 1990 onward, have proven ineffective and even counterproductive. These initiatives have further distanced the public from the Church of England and led to a much steeper decline in church attendance.

Much like some erstwhile political party unable to connect with the general public, the Church of England struggles to appear credible and relevant in people’s daily lives, offering little relevant hope. As an organisation, it has a poor track record regarding equality and fairness. It continues to discriminate against individuals based on sexuality and gender while spending time and money to recruit loyal members. Ironically, these efforts often alienate potential supporters. There is little appetite for a national church that represents privilege and the power to discriminate while lacking proper accountability and transparency.

The most direct challenge posed by the current situation concerns the status of the Church of England within our constitutional monarchy. The UK’s hereditary head of state must meet certain religious criteria: monarchs cannot be Roman Catholics (though since 2015 they can marry one), must be “in communion” with the Church of England, must swear an oath declaring that they are faithful Protestants, and, during the coronation, must vow to rule justly and defend the rights and privileges of the Church of England.

As the supreme Governor of the Church of England, the monarch, on the advice of ministers, makes all senior appointments. Of the 40-plus diocesan bishops, 26 sit in the House of Lords by virtue of their seniority. Iran is the only other country in the world where religious leaders have automatic seats in the legislature. This complex arrangement is commonly referred to as ‘establishment’, highlighting a historically close partnership between church and state. Originally, this relationship reflected a degree of religious uniformity, as every citizen was required to belong to the established Church, and there was active persecution of Roman Catholics and other Christian minorities. This is no longer the case, and it arguably ended in the 19^th century.

Over the last century, the Church of England has become increasingly autonomous, leading to the characterisation of the arrangement as “weak establishment.” Nevertheless, the central aspect of establishment persists through the Church of England’s unique relationship with the head of state, Parliament, and the current government. While the UK can claim to have religious freedom, it regrettably lacks religious equality due to the Church of England’s continued privileges compared to other religious organisations.

This axis of inequality and privilege poses challenges to the Church of England’s reputation. The House of Lords, which is one half of the UK Parliament, has bishops solely (sitting ‘as of right’) of members from the Church of England, with no representation from Welsh, Irish, or Scottish denominations. In the UK, where power and governance are increasingly decentralised and devolved, there is no justification for this lack of diversity.

If it were thought important to have faith representatives in the devolved assemblies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, an openly democratic-meritocratic system to elect them could be devised and modelled in the House of Lords. The present situation presumes that Church of England bishops have the competence and right to address spiritual, moral, and social concerns outside England and can speak on behalf of all faiths and none. This is plainly beyond their remit and expertise.

The Bill to Disestablish the Church of England in Wales (1914, enacted 1920) can be extended to England. Contrary to what the Church of England will claim and obfuscate, the required parliamentary bill has been enacted in other home nations and could be replicated in England.[28] Alternatively, or in lockstep, Parliament could pass a bill that would not seek to replace any of the bishops as they retire at 70, so that sitting as of right with the practice of ontological-hereditary privilege would be phased out naturally.

Parliament would cease to have any role in regulating the Church of England or its General Synod, and Church of England ecclesiastical law would operate at the same level it does for other Anglican churches in the UK. It would no longer be statutory law. The Charity Commission would regulate and monitor those areas within its jurisdiction, and secular law would be available to clergy, laity, bishops, and dioceses in the event of legal issues arising (e.g., employment disputes). At present, the persistence of church courts and disciplinary proceedings, in which bishops continue to have largely unfettered powers, is unconscionable.

Safeguarding in the Church of England would cease to operate in a wholly non-transparent and unaccountable manner. Safeguarding in the Church of England is currently (at best) self-regulating, but widely regarded as problematically opaque, and totally unworthy of trust or professional esteem. The present situation is unconscionable, with the Church of England resisting secular regulation in such spheres, claiming numerous exemptions from statutory law (e.g., under clergy disciplinary proceedings), interpreting ecclesiastical law as it wishes (e.g., still arguing for private trials of clergy), and retaining the status and lustre of being “established by law” while lacking any meaningful public accountability for its actions. No other faith enjoys such privilege.

Whilst it is true that local schools and locally focused ministry in parishes and chaplaincies remain valued, this local engagement – offering spiritual, pastoral, and civic support – does not necessarily require the formalities associated with establishment. However, the current leadership of the Church of England fans the myth that establishment is an all-or-nothing proposition, constitutionally complex, and an essential component in statecraft. Furthermore, that any such unravelling would have implications for the monarchy and constitution of the UK.

However, such assertions are demonstrably untrue. Looking across the rest of Europe, there are no other national churches with the privileges and preferential treatment that come with ‘establishment’. The Church of England can be a national church if it still aspires to serve the nation. It need not be established.

For England, a national, but not established church, represents a commendable and interim way forward for the nation as a whole, with Church of England clergy and churches continuing to provide extensive parish-based pastoral and spiritual care and also replicating this in chaplaincies (i.e., prison, healthcare, military, etc). This would be comparable to provisions in Scotland and would bring the Church of England’s position into line with that of other European countries. The time for reform is ripe. A Bill to effect these changes is long overdue and would command widespread support from within the Church of England, across England, and throughout the UK.

Photo by Adrian Raudaschl on Unsplash

Martyn Percy is Research Professor, Theologische Fakultät, Universität Bern (Switzerland) and Canon Theologian, Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe. His Partitioning Contemporary Anglicanism: A Study in Critical Ecclesiology, London: Routledge, will be published later this year.

---

[1] See Martyn Percy, Partitioning Contemporary Anglicanism: A Study in Critical Ecclesiology, London: Routledge, 2026.

[2] See: https://lawandreligionuk.com/2025/11/03/the-bishops-vote-in-the-legislative-council-of-tynwald/

[3] See Martyn Percy, ‘The coronation of Charles III—Subjects and Objects’, Prospect, May 09, 2023: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/monarchy/61334/coronation-king-charles-westminster-abbey

[4] See Martyn Percy, The Crisis of Colonial Anglicanism: Empire, Slavery and Revolt in the Church of England. London: Hurst Books, 2025; The Exiled Church. London: SCM-Canterbury Press, 2025; and Church, Communion and Culture: Samuel Seabury and the Fate of Global Anglicanism. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2026.

[5] See ‘House of Lords backs bid to decriminalise abortion’. The Bishops voted against decriminalisation. BBC, 18 March 2026: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp323zpxp11o See also https://churchinparliament.org/tag/abortion/

[6] David Nicholls, Deity and Domination: Images of God and the State in the 19th and 20th Centuries, London: Routledge, 1993. C.f. Percy, Martyn. Anglicanism: Confidence, Commitment and Communion. London: Routledge, 2013.

[7] Church Times, 29^th November 2022, p. 3.

[8] See Alice Goodman, ‘Clerical Life: Fragile Church’, Prospect, May 2026, pp. 79-80.

[9] For an analysis of post-pandemic trends, see Christopher Baker et al, ‘Faith’ in Funerals? Robust Attenuation or Terminal Decline, Journal of Contemporary Religion, vol. 40. no. 3., 2025, pp. 507-528.

[10] c.f. David Voas, https://theconversation.com/is-there-really-a-religious-revival-in-england-why-im-sceptical-of-a-new-report-257863. Even Conservative Evangelicals in the Church of England concur that the decline continues, although major metropolitan conurbations buck the trend, such that the future of the Church of England appears to be a handful of sizeable, well-staffed churches and an extremely large number of very small congregations. See: Ian Paul, https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/is-the-church-of-england-growing-again/.

[11] This would seem to be a shared problem internationally. See Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America, New York: Oxford University Press, 2025. Smith convincingly shows that disaffection and disaffiliation with churches are growing in the developed world, and the numbers leaving – often quietly – not being replenished.

[12] Professor Sir John Curtice, President of the British Social Attitudes (BSA) body, noted that whilst the Bible Society claimed that church attendance had risen from 8% to 12%, and were now at pre-pandemic levels, the BSA found almost the reverse – that the attendance figures had dropped from 12% to 9%, and furthermore that there was no evidence of increased church attendance amongst younger people, although other faiths were recording slight growth. See ‘More or Less’, BBC Radio Four, 14 January 2026: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002pqgv

[13] See Madeleine Davies, ‘Church of England Statistics for Mission show slow growth’, Church Times, 20the October 2025:

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/31-october/news/uk/church-of-england-statistics-for-mission-contradict-claims-of-quiet-revival

[14] Naturally, it is a puzzle why the Statement of Needs is more than these three words: “Fulfil the Ordinal”. After the Bishop has been teaching the clergy, engaged in the pastoral care of congregations and wider diocese, leading mission, and maintaining unity, all other information could be confined to appendices. Of course, the Statement of Needs does not mention the Ordinal.

[15]https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f3ecfb22c3ee/content/pages/documents/statement%20of%20needs%20(full%20doc)%20(2)-compressed.pdf. For a recent critique of such, see Marus Walker, ‘Biscuit Crumbs from the Table’, September 22^nd 2025, The Critic Magazine https://thecritic.co.uk/biscuit-crumbs-from-the-table/

[16] Charlotte Kelly, ‘It is time for the Lords Spiritual to leave the House of Lords’, UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor, https://labourlist.org/2026/04/it-is-time-for-the-lords-spiritual-to-leave-the-house-of-lords/

[17] See Martyn Percy, Partitioning Postcolonial Anglicanism: Discord, Dissent and Division in the Church of England, London: Routledge, 2026.

[18] See Martyn Percy, The Crisis of Colonial Anglicanism: Empire, Slavery and Revolt in the Church of England. London: Hurst Books, 2025.

[19] See Martyn Percy & Anthony Bash, Trials and Tribulations: Pastoral and Professional Challenges in Prosecuting Church of England Clergy, York: Ethics Press International, 2026. The volume offers a lengthy list of cases, extensively discussed, which highlight the incompetent, discriminatory, nepotistic, cruel, carceral and corrupt culture within the Church of England’s safeguarding.

[20] https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/11/12/the-archbishop-and-the-abuser,November 12^th 2024. See also Martyn Percy, https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/religion/church-of-england/68523/welby-is-gonebut-trust-in-the-church-is-broken-beyond-repair, November 12^th 2024.

[21] Jennifer McKiernan, ‘Hereditary peers’ last hurrah as 700-year-old system abolished’, BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgp5j5gpplo

[22] Ontological descent by bloodline remains an integral feature of the British monarchy, to which the coronation bears witness. However, no change in ontological status is implied for the rest of the British hereditary aristocracy (e.g., Dukes, Earls, etc.). For Church of England Bishops, the ontological descent is quasi-monarchical in character, with the claim that, in form, function, and office, the Bishop of a Diocese is in a direct line of descent from the first apostles (i.e., apostolic succession). Functionally, like the rest of the British aristocracy, the titles, powers and privileges of a diocesan bishop in the Church of England are inherited as of right in the role and are regarded as one of many “possessions” acquired at accession, which include other rights and privileges. The substantive issue is automatic entitlement to power and privilege to shape public life, and it is this that ended with the hereditary peers in April 2026, raising questions about why the same argument and policy have not been extended to the Lords Spiritual.

[23] On this, see Martyn Percy, Prospect, March 1^st 2023, for an analysis of Charles III’s coronation: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/society/60516/why-charless-coronation-could-be-a-spiritual-flop

[24] For example, Tim Dakin was chosen as the Lord Bishop of Winchester in 2011, but largely as a result of the unrepresentative majority of theologically conservative insiders who sat on the selection panel. Upon selection, Dakin automatically became an ex officio member of the House of Lords. Despite concerns and disputed claims regarding his proficiency and performance in several previous roles, he was still named as the ‘Lead Bishop for Higher and Further Education’ in the House of Lords, his lack of expertise notwithstanding. Dakin announced his retirement as Bishop of Winchester in 2021, following the threat of several votes of no confidence in his leadership at the diocesan level.

[25] We note that Law Lords were the full-time judges of the House of Lords until July 30, 2009, when the upper chamber ceased to serve as the highest appeal court in the UK. On October 1, 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The twelve Law Lords became the first justices of the Supreme Court and were barred from sitting in the House of Lords. Retired justices could return to the House as full members in due course, but newly appointed Supreme Court justices do not have seats in the House of Lords.

[26] See Martyn Percy & Anthony Bash, Trials and Tribulations: Pastoral and Professional Challenges in Prosecuting Church of England Clergy, York: Ethics Press International, 2026. The volume offers a lengthy list of cases, extensively discussed, which highlight the incompetent, discriminatory, nepotistic, cruel, carceral and corrupt culture within the Church of England’s safeguarding.

[27] https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/11/12/the-archbishop-and-the-abuser,November 12^th 2024. See also Martyn Percy, https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/religion/church-of-england/68523/welby-is-gonebut-trust-in-the-church-is-broken-beyond-repair, November 12^th 2024.

[28] The Welsh Church Act 1914^, enacted in 1920 and Ireland are models of legislature. See Paul O’Leary, ‘Religion, Nationality and Politics: Disestablishment in Ireland and Wales 1868–1914’, in Contrasts and Comparisons: Studies in Irish and Welsh Church History, edited by J.R. Guy and W.G. Neely, Cardiff: Welsh Religious History Society/Dublin: Church of Ireland Historical Society, 1999, pp. 89–113.