A Question of Faith or Faiths & Reconciling My Own
As King Charles III assumes the role of monarch his views and opinions on 'faith' will no doubt again be discussed. From those he has voiced in the past, and most recently since the death of his mother Queen Elizabeth II, these views could be different enough to affect the 'established' Church of England, so could "all faiths and none" be workable in practice, within the monarchy?
A royal wedding or funeral, without doubt, reminds us that the official, established Church of England continues, with the monarch as its Supreme Governor. Since Queen Elizabeth’s death we have seen it in the ascendance of Charles, yet there are signs that the late monarch and the Church of England have recognized the need to make some adjustments.
In 2012, the then queen spoke from Lambeth Palace, the official London residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. She said that the Church of England's role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions, but rather it is a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.
During her Platinum Jubilee earlier this year, she reiterated these comments saying,
“Gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely,”.
When she ascended to the throne, in 1953 she took on the role of "Defender of the Faith", (a title granted to Henry VIII by the Pope in 1521 - he subsequently broke with Rome and became the first head of the Church of England) and monarchs have assumed this role ever since. Charles III will take on this title and has endorsed his mother's words in his address to the nation, the day after her death :
“The role and the duties of Monarchy also remain,” he said, “as does the Sovereign’s particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England - the Church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted.” But he continued, "In the course of the last 70 years we have seen our society become one of many cultures and many faiths.”
Decades earlier, the then Prince of Wales suggested adopting a title of "Defender of Faith (or faiths) " to reflect a more inclusive title and an interest in other denominations and religions. Many Christians and traditionalists were shocked at this idea of change which would have meant parliament amending the longstanding legislation, which has been in place since 1953. Later, however, Charles then indicated that he would not seek an amendment and that his views had been misinterpreted.
His statement in his public address on September 9th was perhaps to reassure those doubters, when he was proclaimed "King and Defender of the Faith" - singular rather than plural. “I said I would rather be seen as ‘Defender of Faith,’ all those years ago, as I mind about the inclusion of other people’s faiths and their freedom to worship in this country, while at the same time being Defender of The Faith, you can also be protector of faiths ... ... You have to come from your own Christian standpoint – in the case I have, as Defender of The Faith – and ensure that other people’s faiths can also be practiced.”
The new king's 'clarification' was met with dismay by British National Secular Society . It wants royal titles and oaths to be further inclusive and appropriate for the modern era. Their campaign manager has said that there have been two major changes in society since the Queen came to the throne. Firstly, there is now a vast number of people who do not identify with any religion and secondly, that there is a wide variety of religions and denominations in the UK. Even the earlier-proposed “Defender of Faith” title would only have addressed the second of those two trends. The monarchy has a history of adapting as society changes but it must also recognise when it's time for the institution to adjust to the fact that a large proportion of Britons are non-believers. Ideally that would mean the head of state not having any constitutional connection with religion – or religions. (Any possible dissent on the accession of Charles III seen in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could constitute a debate on 'Faith v Nationalism', another day).
The late queen's funeral with its choral music, military processions and pomp and circumstance was a reminder that, central to the event, it was a Christian ceremony. With the coffin presided over by robed clergymen, and resting in front of the altar, we were told by the Archbishop of Canterbury that:
"Those who serve will be loved and remembered when those who cling to power and privileges are forgotten".
We must take our own interpretations of 'serve' here - serving the monarch, the country, church, God or all of these has to be our decision. But how this seemingly, freedom of individual thought and speech can be practised within the contexts of all religions and also a secular society, I am not sure.
And so, which 'faith' exactly are we referring to in any reference, royal or not?
With my advancing years, reflections on the death of the queen and inevitably further reflection on my parents and grandparents deaths, I find I am questioning the word 'faith' in a way which sometimes feels contradictory to my own beliefs and how I was brought up - as a Christian and closely connected to the Methodist Church. Of course, this questioning has been continuous through my life - musings of which can be found elsewhere on this blog - but naturally, more so as I I come closer to my own demise, which none of us know the time of, royalty or commoner. I have researched, investigated and drawn conclusions from what I have experienced of many religions and spiritual thinking and have agreed with myself, to a point, on what my personal, individual belief system is, though this is tested and changed on a regular basis. I have disregarded 'religion' as a social and collective belief system, which relies on rules and rituals inspired by scriptures believed to be divine. Yet I cannot describe my 'faith' as such, except perhaps in a negative way. That is, I can tell you what I don't believe, but to say what I do, is a more difficult matter. However, I do regard myself as having a 'faith' which encompasses some elements of a number of different 'faiths'. How then can this be reconciled with a defender of such, when that defence is based on not only a 'religion', but a denomination, namely Anglican? Add to this the thought that all members of the Church of England are Anglicans, but not all members of the Anglican church are also members of the Church of England, as they may be members of other churches within the International Anglican Communion - and the importance of precise wording becomes even more clear.
I have always struggled with the concept of 'divinity' in Christianity, let alone the nature of deities in any other of the generally recognised world religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Islam.
Which is a shame, as one of my favourite hymns is "Love Divine", which was sung as the final hymn at Queen Elizabeth's funeral. It's music is almost ethereal and the words speak to my heart, yet I hesitate at singing the name of Jesus as 'divine' or 'redeemer'. 'God' works better for me, despite my faith in God being different to others.
Having my music loving Methodist parents, and Baptist grandparents, ensured that our home was always full of singing, mostly hymns, many of which I sing to myself, aloud or in my head as I go about my daily life. Sometimes I have been known to quote a line of a hymn or biblical text while chatting to strangers in a supermarket queue, to emphasise a point of discussion. Needless to say, often these comments either fall on deaf ears or are puzzling enough to be responded to with blank expression.
The point that I am trying to make here is that being a product of a religious and absolutely faithful background, has enriched my life, and helped me to become the adult I am today, without enforcing a particular, prescriptive faith on me. This I have due to my personality, life experiences and the influence of 'spiritual' inspiration. A defender of faith/faiths cannot defend my faith, or anyone else's without imposing prescription, such as stating the creed of that religion.
Dilemma - Is it hypocritical for me to sing "Love Divine" ?
Love Divine - Queen Elizabeth's funeral
.jpg)
Comments