This is a magisterial work which, although at times dense in its content, deserves careful study whether by lawyers, clergy or historians. It is divided into four main parts: essential background material; what organized religions are, and what they do; and a search for constitutional principle. The book's stated aim is to provide ‘a systematic study of English law as it applies to organized religions’ although, as the author points out, ‘none of these terms is particularly satisfactory’ (p. vii). More particularly, it intentionally makes no attempt to define ‘religion’ because what is actually important in the legal context is to understand ‘how the law defines – and organizes – religions’ (p. vii). Not only is this so in cases involving, for example, Druids, Wiccans or those contending for Jedi-ism, but also may even involve consideration of the tenets of humanism (see pp. 227, 309). Indeed, as Professor Rivers notes, ‘the legal effect of [the] disruption of the relatively settled boundary between the religious and the non-religious’ has had a particular impact in the areas of education and broadcasting (see pp. 314–15, 332–33). One example discussed is that of discrimination on religious grounds in the admissions criteria in designated religious schools. In R(E) v Governing Body of JFS[2008] ELR 445; [2009] EWCA Civ 626; [2010]2 WLR 153 the claimants had been rejected from admission to an orthodox Jewish school on the grounds that they were not Jewish by matrilineal descent or conversion according to the principles of the Chief Rabbi but this policy has now been declared unlawful. As Rivers points out, the decision of the Supreme Court technically turns on the meaning of the word ‘grounds’ but, nevertheless, the ‘underlying point is that the law as interpreted by the majority requires a non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish. Only the adoption of a concept of religion which fits dominant (i.e. broadly Christian) understandings will satisfy the law’ (p. 257).
Perhaps the most interesting question addressed throughout the book is the ongoing effects of the various pieces of national and international law in relation to human rights. These, too, differ dependent on context but these complications are dealt with throughout with a very sure touch. Indeed, on occasions Rivers is not shy to point out when a decision is in his view incorrect: see the discussion (at p. 151) of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning[1964] AC 420.
Perhaps fortuitously this work was written before the commencement of common tenure for the clergy in the Church of England although in this regard Rivers’ more general comment is pertinent: ‘Is ministry a way of making a living, or is a living what frees up the individual to engage in the ministry to which they have been called?’ (p. 120). Unfortunately it was also written before the creation of the ordinariate by the Roman Catholic Church for those Anglican clergy who no longer feel able to remain in the Church of England. No doubt these will be considered in any future edition.
A future edition may also give an opportunity to consider the arming of some chaplains during World War II, particularly (like my own father, an RAF chaplain flown into the siege of Imphal) during the Burma campaign (contrast p. 210 and Robinson, Chaplains at War (Tauris Academic Studies, 2008) at 160–61). In addition the Book of Common Prayer is no longer given statutory force by the Act of Uniformity 1662 (p. 200, note 152) as the relevant provisions have been repealed; however, the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974, section 1, ensures that those forms of service continue to be available for use. As a footnote the Secretary of State has to date never exercised his powers under the Army Chaplains Act 1868, section 4.
Nonetheless, these are very minor matters that in no way detract from the enormous value of this work. It will remain the leading textbook for many years and we are deeply indebted to the author for such an important contribution to a subject that will continue of great importance both to individuals and constitutionally. The caption to the book is a quotation from Magna Carta –‘quod Anglicana ecclesia libera est’– and Professor Rivers ends his preface: ‘If this book revives and rearticulates that value in the very different circumstances obtaining eight centuries later, it will have served its purpose’ (p. x). He most certainly succeeds in the latter and deserves to succeed in the former.
