The Archbishop of Canterbury has reignited the debate over the separation of church and state by saying that "it would not be the end of the world if the established church disappeared".

In an interview with this week's New Statesman, Rowan Williams argues there is a "certain integrity" to a church free from state sanctions.

Williams, who was born in Swansea, grew up in the Church of Wales, a disestablished church, and spent 10 years working as one of its bishops.

He said: "I can see that it's by no means the end of the world if the establishment disappears. The strength of it is that the last vestiges of state sanction disappeared, so when you took a vote at the Welsh synod, it didn't have to be nodded through by parliament afterwards. There is a certain integrity to that."

He expressed his concern, however, that secularists and atheists would capitalise on attempts to separate church and state by saying religion was in an increasingly precarious position in British life.

Williams told the magazine: "It's a very shaky time for the public presence of faith in society. I think the motives that would now drive disestablishment from the state side would be mostly to do with ... trying to push religion into the private sphere, and that's the point where I think I'd be bloody-minded and say, 'Well, not on that basis.'"

Before he became archbishop, in 2002, Williams never had to pledge allegiance to the Queen, and was sceptical about the establishment Church of England. In 2000, two years before his appointment, he said: "I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness. I believe increasingly that the church has to earn the right to be heard by the social world. Establishment is just one of those things that make it slightly harder."

When his name began to be associated with the Canterbury office he clarified his position in a public statement, claiming disestablishment was "not at the top of the agenda for the Church of England".

Williams also reflected on the outrage sparked by his observations on sharia law – that adoption of certain aspects of it in Britain were inevitable.

"I think what it did bring home to me was the degree to which we love to have people making our flesh creep. The scapegoating, the anger. It's a worrying thing because it depends on keeping crisis at the forefront of everybody's mind."