Order of Service for a 'Modern' Coronation'?
On May 6, King Charles III will be crowned in Westminster Abbey in an ancient ceremony echoing biblical ideas of kingship and containing rituals that have been used since the first English king more than 1,000 years ago. But Charles will undergo the ceremony in an England unlike any other - different even from that of his mother, 70 years ago … On March 21, 2021, the day of Britain’s decennial census, 1 in 6 residents, about 10 million people, reported they had been born outside the United Kingdom, up from 7.5 million in 2011. India is the most common country of birth of migrants, but significant numbers list Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Jamaica and other former colonies, as well as former European Union partners such as Romania and Poland. The ethnic diversity is matched by changes in the country’s religious makeup. Just 46% said they were Christian on census day — a drop of 11 percentage points in 10 years. Meanwhile, other faiths, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism, grew by 100,000 adherents in a decade.
But the most significant difference is the growth of those who said they have no religion — an increase of 8.5 million, bringing those with no faith to 22 million, or a third of the population.
Yet the coronation remains fundamentally a Church of England rite. The monarch, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, that same church’s leading primate. This mutual endorsement has prevailed since 1534, when Henry VIII broke England away from the Roman Catholic Church and set up his own church. A few years earlier, the pope had settled on Henry the title of Defender of the Faith for his loyalty to Rome. Despite the split, all British monarchs, including Charles, have used it since.
The irony is that 500 years later, about twice as many Roman Catholics attend Mass, about a million, as Anglicans do Sunday services. Even if they balk as the king swears his oath to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion, Catholics will have some familiarity with anointing with oils; the Anglican Holy Communion service, which is similar to the Catholic one; and the moments when God is asked to sustain the king in his duties, which is comparable to a priestly ordination.
For that sizable third of the population who have no religion, however, the coronation may be mystifying. Demystifying it will be the job of the media. British television companies and other broadcasters, magazines and newspapers are all priming themselves to explain it to an audience that does not have the religious literacy it once did. But there is another, no less remarkable change in the religious orientation of the man being crowned. While confirming his own faith since his accession last September, King Charles has also made an effort to embrace Britons of other faiths and even none.
During his televised address to the nation the night after his mother’s death, he talked about his particular responsibility to the Church of England and described it as “the church in which my own faith is deeply rooted.” A week later, at a reception at Buckingham Palace for leaders of several faiths, he said, “I am a committed Anglican Christian and at my Coronation take an oath relating to the Settlement of the Church of England,” but he added that he had a duty as sovereign “to protect the diversity of our country, including by protecting the space for faith itself.”#
He went on: “I hold myself bound to respect those who follow other spiritual paths, as well as those who seek to live their lives in accordance with secular ideals.”
In this the new king was following in his mother’s footsteps. Known for her own Christian faith as well as her public role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Elizabeth led the nation in prayer services of thanksgiving and commemorations for the war dead. Since the 1930s, British monarchs have spoken to the nation via the radio and, later, television on Christmas Day.
People remark on Elizabeth’s very personal reflections about her own Christian beliefs in later broadcasts, but in fact her very first Christmas broadcast, after her accession to the throne in 1952, was highly personal and faithful too. “I want to ask you all, whatever your religion may be, to pray for me on that day,” she said, “that God may give me wisdom and strength to carry out the solemn promises I will be making, and that I may faithfully serve Him and you, all the days of my life.”
It was a bold step from a queen in 1952. Interfaith dialogue was the not yet the norm, and the presumption was that she was asking for the prayers of her subjects of whatever faith. At her coronation six months later, it became evident quite how dominant Anglicanism remained when only one cleric from another Christian denomination, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, was given a role in the ceremony, and a tiny one at that — he handed the queen the Bible on which she swore her oaths. No Roman Catholic was remotely present, let alone a Muslim, Jew or Hindu. Roll forward to 2022 and Charles’ first Christmas Day broadcast as monarch. After a tribute to his mother and her faith, and a reference to his visit to Bethlehem years earlier, he praised the number of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and gurdwaras offering solidarity with those in need as “the most inspiring expression of loving our neighbour as ourself.” The citation is from Leviticus as well as the New Testament, but anyone within earshot undoubtedly registered an acknowledgment of Christian teaching.
But importantly, there was no mention of his coronation and no request for prayers. The king, who has long been engaged in interfaith dialogue, would have been acutely aware that while asking for prayers, as his mother did, could be interpreted as an inclusive act, it could also be seen as exclusive, especially to that third of the British who have no faith.
This difficult balancing act is evident in the planning for the coronation. It will be above all else an Anglican service, but there is growing evidence of efforts to make it more ecumenical. The holy oil the Archbishop of Canterbury will use to anoint the king, symbolizing God’s blessing coming down upon him, is made from olives grown close to where Charles’ paternal grandmother, Princess Alice of Greece, is buried, and was blessed by not only an Anglican bishop but a Greek Orthodox patriarch. This is an innovation not seen before. In addition, the cross to be used in the coronation procession has embedded in it relics of the true cross, given by Pope Francis.
Of course, the coronation ritual is older than the Reformation, when England broke with Rome, and so is intrinsically Catholic. Still, it will be bracing to see a reliquary cross swaying over the introit of a service in which a monarch will swear to uphold a Protestant sect founded by Henry VIII, who ordered countless medieval shrines, including their relics, destroyed. As the order of service has still not been published, quite what the role of other faiths will be is still not clear. Anglican canon law rules out prayers said by other faiths in Church of England churches; only a fortnight ago, Manchester Cathedral apologized after a Muslim call to prayer was chanted in its nave. But there is precedent for at least nominal involvement of other faiths, if only recent:
Representatives of non-Anglican and non-Christian faiths processed in Westminster Abbey for Queen Elizabeth’s funeral. One option may be that faith leaders offer the king a greeting during the coronation.
The Church of England, meanwhile, has issued a book of prayers, asking people to pray each day between Easter and May 6 for the king, with reflections on different elements of the ceremony and explaining its symbolism. The book also encourages people to pray for the nation and the world. Its compilers might also have asked people to pray for the Church of England, an institution, no less than the monarchy, whose future will be the subject of much discussion on Coronation Day.
I can't help but find it a bit distasteful that the other Christian churches have been reduced to something to pick 'n' mix shiny things from. I'll take some of your holy oil, and one of your relics... All while assuming the Supreme Governance of an institution that asserts as an article of religion that the other Churches have 'erred not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith', and that 'the adoration ... of Relics ... is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.'
ReplyDeleteAs the article points out:
DeleteThe coronation ritual is older than the Reformation, when England broke with Rome, and so is intrinsically Catholic. Still, it will be bracing to see a reliquary cross swaying over the introit of a service in which a monarch will swear to uphold a Protestant sect founded by Henry VIII, who ordered countless medieval shrines, including their relics, destroyed.
It's about the 'Firms' survival in an increasingly post-Christian, secular world. The TV commentary will be interesting.
As a monarch of a pluralistic society, I don't have an issue with sticking bits in the coronation service from any part of society (although where do you stop?) But as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England - no. I doubt the next Pope will be installed using oil blessed by Justin Welby, or the next Ecumenical Patriarch vested with a pectoral cross made by the United Methodists, and for good reason. Having said that, Church of England Anglicanism has always been a pastiche of Catholicism and the bits of other traditions it fancies, so perhaps the service is quintessentially Anglican after all. They just need to throw in some 'Celtic' prayers about wild birds and a grab an icon from somewhere.
DeleteThe answer is, I think, disestablishment. Let the coronation be a secular event (how many Brits still believe that the monarch is divinely appointed anyway?) Have the crown danced up the aisle by some NHS workers (if they're not on strike), sit the king on a throne made of red phone boxes, take him away in a black cab and be done with it. Maybe cutting its umbilical cord to the state would help pull the CofE out the increasingly insane death spiral it finds itself in.
雲水,
DeleteYes, I'd always thought that Charles would de-establish the CofE, and, judging by its hierarchy at least, it hardly looks fit for Christian purpose these days, whatever one thinks about the 'via media' idea. But he may let it continue for now out of respect to his mother, or he may just not be bothered enough as long as he can carry on with his other diverse pursuits and thoughts.
As for the coronation, if he was genuinely commited to Christianity, he could truly make it an ecumenical delight with appropriate contributions from all manifestions of the religion of Christ, but I suspect even that wouldn't be to his taste. (It's actually quite hard to imagine a secular version of the event which wouldn't be absolutely excruciating!)
I think that if the coronation is a religious service, it has to be Anglican since that is the country's 'official' religion. Once you start including anyone else, you have to justify why you're excluding others. If you include all manifestations of Christianity, for example, where do you stop? (And I imagine that there's a good many nonconformist denominations that wouldn't want to be included). What would the Plymouth Brethren do? Do you include Jehovah's Witnesses? Then you'd have to justify why only Christians and not Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and so on.
DeleteI don't think that Charles has any authority to disestablish the CofE even if he wanted to. But he may well be a catalyst for establishment to collapse under its own weight, and that would be a good thing. If/when William takes the throne, I image that things will be very different.
Judging by our last few big secular celebrations, which have been an embarrassing London-centric exercise in underwhelming box ticking and pandering, you're right that a secular coronation would be utterly unwatchable!
Oh well, from me what I've seen so far I'm happy. If he has introduced things from other Christian traditions, I view that as a positive.
ReplyDeleteI was in a church recently with a lot of relics of the boney sort, gave me the creeps. But I'm sure Charles is being respectful about his use of relics in the service.
Let's choose to be a pint glass half full, not half empty about this.
Personally I'm all for the established church although I would like it to be more robust in its faith.
But the 39 Articles, the foundational document of the Church of England, holds that the use of relics is 'repugnant to the word of God'. So what does their inclusion mean? It's either the opposite of being robust in (the Anglican) faith, or presumably a piece of inclusivity theatre for a delusional pope who thinks his little bits of wood are part of Christ's cross (the position that Henry VIII took when he destroyed, for example, the Holy Blood of Hailes).
DeleteI think it's impossible to have a robust established church when its bishops are ultimately selected by politicians. Clearly, nobody who challenges the status quo will ever rise to a position of authority, and the idea of having church leaders selected by non-churchgoing atheists is just bizarre. Much of the problems with nationalism in the Russian Orthodox Church are rooted in Peter the Great (a non religious man) pulling a Henry VIII on the Russian Church, deposing the Patriarch in favour of a state controlled synod and reserving the appointment of bishops to the Tsar.
"I think it's impossible to have a robust established church when its bishops are ultimately selected by politicians".
DeleteBut senior Clerics within the CofE have frequently been extremely critical of governments. I don't think that'd a fair criticism.
I will acknowledge that if you were to to come up with a constitution like the UK'S no one would take you seriously. It's an absurdity.
But it's worked.
Lain: it’s important to be precise when quoting doctrinal statements. The Article doesn’t say that the “use” (whatever that may mean) of relics is repugnant to the word of God. It says that “The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing” etc. etc. This isn’t the same thing. What is this “Romish doctrine” which is condemned in the Article? The Article doesn’t state what that doctrine is. Whatever was at the time in the mind of the framers of that Article, is what they call “The Romish doctrine” the same as what Rome actually teaches now (or even what it actually taught then)? This isn’t hair-splitting. We need to know what the Article meant, as and when written, before we can claim to establish whether the mere presence (not worshipping or adoration) of relics in the Coronation service contradicts the Article.
DeleteKentigern
@ Kenigtern
DeleteInteresting points.
As Jerome, declared in the 4th century: “We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are.”
Their use and veneration is linked to the sacraments. Common material things such as water, wine, bread, oil, and the imposition of hands result in the giving of grace. Related to the sacraments are the sacramentals, objects such as medals, blessed palms, holy water, and ashes. Their use can lead people to receive or respond to grace. So can the relics of saints - the bones, ashes, clothing, or personal possessions of the apostles and other holy people that are held in reverence by the Church and sometimes associated with miraculous healings and other acts of God.
The sacraments, sacramentals and relics don’t compel God to work in a certain way. Their use depends on God, who established their efficacy, so their effects are divine, not natural, in their origin. It is God who sanctions the use of relics.
Did those who drew up the 39 Articles understand this? Article 22 certainly seems to imply they found their use repugnant:
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
Certainly, the Catholic Church would propose their use is sanctioned by God and clearly stated in Scripture.
It needs to be understood, I think, that the use of 'Romish' in the 39 Articles is (as it's still used by fundamentalists today) a pejorative slur for anything that stands contra the Reformers. The Articles are effectively less positive doctrines of belief than an exercise in anti-Catholic polemics and they are, as you note, often woefully imprecise.
DeleteMy question what be, what else is a relic for? Relics become significant because they're venerated, and I would argue that veneration was conceptually implicit in the ownership of a religious relic at that time. I don't think there is much (if any) contemporary evidence of relics being regarded in the same way that we would regard a museum piece today. The complete annihilation of relics in English churches by Henry's men and across the Reformed world suggests that their mere existence was an affront; certainly there was apparently no sense that they could be retained as items of historical interest.
Additionally, I think it's a safe bet to say that whatever 'Romish doctrine' the Reformers had in mind, it more than applies to relics presented by the Bishop of Rome from the vaults of the Vatican. It's hard to imagine Luther or Calvin or Cranmer sticking them in the coronation cross...
The Authorised Liturgy for the Coronation has now been published - here. It's some 42 pages long.
ReplyDeleteIt includes this:
The Procession of Faith Leaders & Representatives of Faith Communities
Faith Leaders and representatives from the Jewish, Sunni and Shia Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Bahai and Zoroastrian communities will be part of the procession into Westminster Abbey.
This represents the multi-faith nature of our society and the importance of inclusion of other faiths whilst respecting the integrities of the different traditions.
The Procession of Ecumenical Leaders
This reflects the diversity and richness of the Christian church life in the UK today.
The Oath includes this:
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant
Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Thank you, @Jack, for posting the Authorised Liturgy. Hadn’t we been expecting it to be called the “Order of Service”? Maybe some Anglicans will complain that the word “liturgy” itself has an unwelcome pre-Reformation ring to it?
ReplyDeleteOn p. 2 we see that Bahai has now been raised to equal status with Judaism, Hinduism, and other religions. I wonder whether the leaders of Sunni and Shia Islam will get into trouble with their congregations for giving their consent to that particular instance of levelling up.
Now I must read the rest of it.
The Daily Mail gives a good summary of the liturgy.
DeleteI hope that they're including representatives from every branch of Judaism, Vaishnavism and Shaivism Hinduism and all of the different Buddhist traditions.
Delete@ Jack - it says there will be a Jain representative. No East Asian religions, apparently, but we're used to this everyday racism from the UK government. I'm with the traditionalists who say that Shintō can only be properly practiced in Japan, it's inherently cultural. Even Catholic Bishops Council of Japan has no problem with Catholics participating in Shintō celebrations as such, since they're cultural rather than religious.
Well, HJ supposes if the celebration includes Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse as the separated god and goddess in love, then the Bishop's Council is correct and these festivals are as religious as Halloween.
DeleteThey aren't gods in the sense that westerners understand the word. And Shintō could teach the west a lot about reverence for the natural world, which is an icon of God, after all.
DeleteYoda isn't happy! And where's Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Jainism?
ReplyDeleteIt's all very easy to point out inconsistencies: like do we include Plymouth Brethren, or have we included all the branches of Islam etc, but if what's happened is a pragmatic compromise of what is possible, I dont see that as a problem.
ReplyDelete@Lain and the 39 articles of faith, I could just be facetious and say the last time the CofE as an institution took them seriously was the day they were compiled!! But I have to say so what? They should bin most of them anyway.
I have a suspicion that the Anglo Catholics in the past will have sneaked in the odd relic. Although I haven't checked. The CofE is a maddening institution, but Im going to watch the coronation, enjoy the eccentricities of it all, and pray the Charles III has a long and successful reign.
You'll be joined by the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, who will pray: “May God pour upon you the riches of his grace, keep you in his holy fear, prepare you for a happy eternity, and receive you at the last into immortal glory.”
DeleteA good prayer.
Delete@ Clive - My comments about the Plymouth Brethren were in reference to the difficulty of Gadjo's suggestion of representing all manifestations of Christianity.
DeleteIt's all only a problem if your stated aim is to make the coronation representative of modern Britain, and then leave out a lot of modern Britain: it's rather making a rod for one's own back. And the role of an Anglican monarch and established church in a minority Anglican country is an interesting discussion to have in that light.
I don't think there's any facetiousness in your comment about the 39 Articles, it's quite true. I remember some of Cranmer's communicants getting rather upset with my saying that they have long ceased to be of anything but historical interest. However, they are still valid and, at their ordination, each ordinand must affirm that 'I ... declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness': those being 'the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.'
It's fair to say 'so what?' if one is just enjoying the ceremony and the occasion, but the theology is internally inconsistent and it's emblematic of the way the that the Church of England plays fast and loose with the rest of its inherited 'formularies' - with Scripture, for example.
You have the mind and heart of a theologian and logician. And I will admit that my position is not really based on either of these.
DeleteI am a constitutional sentimentalist. The coronation is indeed a Christian ceremony, but it is more than that. It is also a ceremony to remind in subtle ways the long history and lineage of this country and the importance of the monarchy at its heart. It looks back and holds onto a lot of messy history and theology that has attached itself to the ceremony over the centuries. It then looks forward to the reign of of the new king and anoints him.
I am an old fashioned patriot. I love my country, it's history and it's maddening, irrational constitution. I don't feel the need to make our Constitution 'modern'.
I will stand by the monarchy, the house of lords, yes even the establishment of the CofE, because despite it all I think it has worked at least as well as the alternatives.
I know I have the body but of a weak, feeble woman but I have the mind and heart of a theologian and logician... 👸🏻
DeleteI have no issue with the monarchy - Japan has the world’s oldest continuous hereditary dynasty after all. I think it has a very important role in shaping and holding together national identity, something that the late Queen did very well and I wonder if her son is up to the task (part of the reason I'm skeptical about all the 'innovation' in this service).
Established churches I'm increasingly less convinced by. I don't think any good has ever come from one religion (or lack of) being privileged above others by the state. They either become political lapdogs or Thomas Becketts. Christian kings slaughtered pagans; Protestant and Catholic monarchs burned one another's adherents; Islamic rulers put Christians, Jews and Buddhists to the sword; atheist states executed everyone else. It wasn't until the 1850s that Catholics were allowed to reestablish their churches in Britain (in the face of an anti-Catholic frenzy stoked by the press, including burning effigies of cardinals), and not until 2013 that the law was changed to allow an heir to the throne to marry a Catholic.
The only reason that the Church of England 'works' as an established church is that it doesn't really believe in anything but itself and a diminishing number of people believe in it. It's tolerated as a quaint anachronism because it makes no demands and does what it's told. That may be good for societal and religious tolerance, but I'm not so sure it's good for building up the Kingdom of God (unless celebrating Iftar in church or making God gender and carbon neutral are pressing concerns in the celestial realms).
You know the funny thing about all that innovation, is I would willingly bet that 98% who watch won't notice. The majority aren't as theologically literate as you!
DeleteI've admitted that my position is t theological or logical, so if I can't appeal to your sense of history or poetry I've lost our little debate and must retire from the battle.
In every way you are right, but I still believe you are wrong😁
In every way you are right
DeleteSee, we agree 😎
"but I still believe you are wrong"
DeleteNever take a quote out of context!
I edited it for accuracy!
DeleteThe BCP is staging a comeback among younger Anglican churchgoers, according to the Rev. Daniel French, the vicar of Salcombe in Devon. Unfortunately his article in the Spectator is behind the usual paywall:
Deletehttps://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-millennial-men-are-turning-to-the-book-of-common-prayer/
@Ray this has been the case for a good few years - it's very similar to how the TLM is (was) gaining popularity among younger Catholics. I mentioned this on Cranmer ages ago and some people got all bristly about the language being 'too difficult'.
DeleteI think is comes down to two things: worship is a break from the 'ordinary' and there is something appropriate about using an unordinary language for it. Secondly, the BCP nails its theological colours to the mast and leaves you in doubt what it believes (even if I happen to think that 95% of it is wrong). Compare that to the modern Common Worship, a product of a committee that didn't want to offend any of the 'broad umbrella' of beliefs that make up the CofE, and it's no surprise that people prefer a robust liturgy that teaches you something over an insipid grey one that's coy about saying anything.