Those Anglican Churches that have opened marriage to same-sex couples have done so from a liturgical starting point which makes space for the eschatological vocation of marriage. Such liturgies are arguably more congenial to same-sex couples’ demands for equal rites. The Church of England, on the other hand, has clung to services underpinned by a narrow view of marriage as a creation ordinance. It may be well-suited to the established Church’s legal duties but it means that the present demand for the inclusion of same-sex couples into Christian marriage represents a greater challenge. Equal rites, however, need not exclude the view of marriage as a creation ordinance. Interviews with four Church of England clergy who have been involved in same-sex ceremonies allow an exploration of the kind of marriage services that would meet same-sex couples’ demands and offer insights about what these demands say about the English marriage service today.

Since the end of World War II and the beginning of the human rights era, a common narrative has dominated international discussions of law and religion, especially in Europe, that emphasizes the alleged idiosyncrasy and uniqueness of U.S. Constitutional law regarding freedom of religion. What I call the “standard story” notes that unlike human rights instruments, and the constitutions of most European States, the U.S. Constitution contains an “Establishment Clause” prohibiting an establishment of religion, while European countries do not have prohibitions on state establishments, and indeed the relationships between religion and the state fall along a continuum running from cooperation, favored religions, to actual state establishments of religion. According to the standard story, the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. First Amendment is a precursor of and has analogues in the human rights instruments’ provisions protecting freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, but the Establishment Clause is characterized as being sui generis, a thing unto itself. The U.S. experience with the antiestablishment principle, symbolized by Jefferson's wall of separation, the standard story notes, is so unique and so different that the lessons gleaned there have very little to offer Europe, or indeed perhaps the rest of the world. In this article I argue, as my title suggests, that the American experience is not as unique as some (especially Europeans) sometimes think it is.

The theme of this fifty-fourth volume of Studies in Church History is ‘The Church and Empire’, and the twenty-three articles included here explore the complex and ever-evolving relationship of ecclesiastical and imperial power within a range of historical contexts. The articles represent plenary addresses and a selection of the communications presented at two highly successful Ecclesiastical History Society conferences during my presidential year – a Summer Conference held at the University of Edinburgh in July 2016 and a Winter Meeting held at Magdalene College, Cambridge, in January 2017. Both conferences attracted a large number of speakers and participants from across the world, and reflected the considerable scholarly interest in questions concerning the relations of Church and empire. These questions include the extent to which Christianity in the Western world became linked to the political power of large imperial states, the nature and extent of the connection of Christianity to the expansion of Western imperialism in the early modern and modern periods, and the manner in which the Church often came into conflict with imperial power, especially when Christians insisted on the spiritual independence of the Church and on maintaining an independent Christian moral witness against the wars of conquest, cruelty, racism, oppression and arrogance of power that too often have been associated with imperial rule.

In the early nineteenth century, many in Britain believed that their conquests in India had a providential purpose, and that imperial Britain had been called by God to Christianize India through an alliance of Church and empire. In 1813, parliament not only opened India to missionary activity, but also provided India with an established Church, which was largely supported by Indian taxation and formed part of the established Church of England. Many hoped that this union of Church and empire would communicate to India the benefits of England's diocesan and parochial structures, with a settled pastorate, parish churches and schools, and a Christian gentry. As the century progressed, the established Church was steadily enlarged, with a growing number of bishoprics, churches, schools, colleges, missionaries and clergy. But it had only limited success in gaining converts, and many Indians viewed it as a form of colonization. From the 1870s, it was increasingly clear that imperial India would not become Christian. Some began reconceptualizing the providential purpose behind the Indian empire, suggesting that the purpose might be to promote dialogue and understanding between the religions of the East and West, or, through the selfless service of missionaries, to promote moral reform movements in Hinduism and Islam.

Understanding Coleridge's classic work On the Constitution of Church and State requires paying close attention to the system of distinctions and relations he sets up between the state, the ‘national church’, and the ‘Christian church’. The intelligibility of these relations depends finally on Coleridge's Trinitarianism, his doctrine of ‘divine ideas’, and the subtle analogy he draws between the Church of England as both an ‘established’ church of the nation and as a Christian church and the distinction and union of divinity and humanity in Christ. Church and State opens up, in these ‘saving’ distinctions and connections, important considerations for the integrity and role of the Christian church within a religiously plural national life.

This is the first systematic attempt to chart the evolving political views of contemporary Church of England clergy. The article is based upon a comparative quantitative analysis and synthesis of eighteen national and four local surveys conducted between 1979 and 2004. Ministerial opinions on the state's influence on the Church and the Church's influence on the state are both considered. Ten specific conclusions are drawn. While the clergy generally cling to the concept of an Established Church, they are very critical of some of the traditional manifestations of that establishment. They also mostly think it highly appropriate for the Church to intervene in the world of party politics, and not simply on moral issues. In this they are positioned ahead of the thinking of many of the committed Anglican laity, for whom a degree of separation of religion and politics remains the ideal. The academic, ecclesiastical and political implications of these findings are briefly explored.