Gavin Ashenden Calls on King Charles to Abdicate
Gavin Ashenden, once Anglican chaplain to Queen Elizabeth II, has suggested that King Charles should step down from the throne, since the king “thinks political correctness is loathsome and the Church of England is all bunkum.”
“Charles, save your soul," says Gavin, "Become Orthodox, become Catholic, and hand that whole mess over to people who thrive on pantomime and fakery.”
The reason for this?
When Charles acceded to the throne during his Coronation he swore, like 500 years of monarchs before him, to “maintain the Protestant Reformed religion established by law and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England.”
As Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Charles' role as King is both a religious one and constitutional one.
Then ....
Last month a letter surfaced containing King Charles blunt criticism of the Church of England, as well as corporate capitalism in farming: “It is money that drives everything and wisdom has been banished in the face of seemingly unstoppable marketing.” He accused the Church of England of being "corrupted by loathsome political correctness."
The correspondence from 1998, when he was still the Prince of Wales, shows his affinity for the "timeless traditions" of the Greek Orthodox Church. "They are the only ones that have not been corrupted by loathsome political correctness," he confessed.
Shortly after his mother’s death, King Charles addressed faith leaders reiterating that he was a “committed Anglican” but that “by my most profound convictions … 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.”
At his Coronation, the King was greeted by
representatives of the Christian denominations and by faith leaders from
Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh communities.
"Become Orthodox, become Catholic," says Gavin Ashenden... he might as well have added "Become a member of The
ReplyDeleteAssyrian Church of the East!" Instead, how about simply, "Charles, save your soul... and commit yourself to Christianity."
This is very interesting and thought provoking. Thank you. I am not often lost for words but this came as a surprise. Strange times ,Cressida
ReplyDeleteI think that having an hereditary Supreme Governor of the CofE is a nonsense. Imagine if bishops were allowed to marry, and the bishop of Rome's first son automatically became succeeded him as the next pope...
ReplyDeleteThe monarch can be the protector of the established church in a constitutional sense whatever his or her own religious beliefs, but cannot be the Supreme Governor unless they are an Anglican. The conflation of those two roles assumes that God will always ensure that whoever sits on the English throne is not just a Christian, not just a Protestant, but an Anglican Protestant Christian. This seems to me to require belief in a kind of predestination so strong that even Calvin would balk at it.
The monarch's position is theologically incoherent. It's time to either scrap the idea that the monarch is D G REX, or the Supreme Governorship. That God can use unbelieving rulers for his good purposes is attested by Scripture, but an unbeliever cannot hold a high religious office. As it stands, if the monarch is appointed by God's grace, Charles must choose between either betraying God by becoming Orthodox (assuming that's what he truly believes) and walking away from his divinely appointed role as king, or betraying God by remaining as king and practicing a faith he doesn't believe in.
Yeah, but the C of E isn't really a church, as such. The best way I ever heard it described was as God's seat on England's board of directors, and very much a non-executive director at that. The emphasis was always on "England", not on "church."
Delete雲水,
DeleteYes, Charles should get a law passed or the constitution changed
or whatever it takes to abolish his absurb role. He visits monastaries on Mount Athos, but unfortunately he also signs up to globalism, and so presumably also to its (man-made) one-world religion ideas.
The monarch by law must be “in communion with” the Church of England and swear that he is a "faithful Protestant."
DeleteHere's part of the oath Charles took:
https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2023-05/23-24132%20Coronation%20Liturgy_05%20May_0.pdf
I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify,
and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the
true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to
the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my
powers according to law.
What is a "faithful Protestant"?
And:
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?
@HJ,
DeleteWell, quite, what is "faithful Protestant" (and having the word "Reformed" in there doesn't help). I guess the phrasing is (ahem) of its time.
@Bell - yes, the CofE was established to provide divine legitimacy for the actions of the King (the state), appeasement of the temporal government is built into its DNA.
Delete@Jack - Indeed. You can't legislate for the faith of a holder of a hereditary position, it's not like saying that the head of a faith school must be a practicing member of that faith. What if all the royals from now on are atheists?
What is a "faithful Protestant"?
A lot of Protestants wouldn't consider the Church of England to be faithful Protestants.
A lot of Anglicans don't consider the powers that be in the Church of England to be faithful Christians!
DeleteTBH I'm finding Ashendon to be a bit of a media attention seeking bore.
ReplyDeleteIf he wants disestablishment, ask it, this way seems dishonest to me.
We don't know what Charles's current views are, all we know is what his views were. To say that these must be the views he holds, denies a person the right to change their mind.
Anyway I'm fairly sure Charles isn't going to take his advice, it would be unfair on William.
I think Gavin has lost his way recently, and gone down the same rabbit hole as Jules Gomes. Gavin withdrew from training for priestly ordination when he was told that he couldn't continue to be so outwardly critical of the Church, and it feels as if he's fallen into making a living through controversy-baiting.
DeleteThis is a shame, as I used to find his commentary quite thoughtful and there is plenty wrong with the world and the Church that would benefit from intelligent and prayerful input, rather than recycling the same online right-wing talking points dressed up in more academic language.
Yes, one of the problems with the 'right' is that wether they are elderly former Priests, Podcast favourites or whatever they all end up recycling tired old tropes.
DeleteOn YouTube you get a large number of shorts with the title, 'conservative crushes woke liberal" or whatever. Actually they rarely do, and come across as delusional as the woke liberals.
And the number who don't know the difference between communism and socialism is laughable .
HJ tends to agree, Clive. Controversy attracts attention - and the resulting revenue. It all gets rather tiresome.
DeleteI'm bored with it all. It's all so destructive.
DeleteCalling the current state of public affairs “pantomime” is unfair to pantomime.
ReplyDelete"Oh No it isn't."
Delete“Oh Yes it is!”
Delete“Oh Yes it is!”
DeleteI may assure Gavin Ashenden that it is not the whole of the Church of England which has become heretical - though the great majority of the bishops have. The King indeed gave an oath to be a faithful Protestant - and if he is, he is doing far better than those turbulent bishops.
ReplyDeleteVery true, Little Hobb.
DeleteThe real divide today is between believers and non-believers, not between Catholics and Protestants. That's not to say the points of difference between the Christian religions are unimportant, but there are bigger issues to worry about.
A good, faithful Protestant beats an atheist.
A good, faithful Protestant beats an atheist.
DeleteIt rather depends on what that means, again. I'd rather have dinner with an atheist than, say, the very faithful adherents of Westboro Baptist Church or some of our very faithful fundamentalist friends who think you and I have a very toasty eternity to look forward to.
I would say that a Christlike person beats a faithful follower of a particular tradition. I think these are two different things.
Pedant!
DeleteComment noted for when I come into my yakuza inheritance 😌
DeleteI think the difference is important, though. Wars have been fought over people being faithful to a religious tradition, not so much blood has been shed over who is more Christlike. Jesus told his listeners that they had to go beyond merely being 'sons of Abraham' and be transformed.
Transformed? Easily said, not so easily done.
DeleteIndeed, and that is the paradox of Christianity. But if our religion doesn't transform us, then it's worthless.
DeleteAs Chesterton said, 'the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.'
Or, to be ecumenical, as Kierkegaard put it:
'The difference between an admirer and a follower still remains, no matter where you are. The admirer never makes any true sacrifices. He always plays it safe. Though in words, phrases, songs, he is inexhaustible about how highly he prizes Christ, he renounces nothing, gives up nothing, will not reconstruct his life, will not be what he admires, and will not let his life express what it is he supposedly admires'
@Lain
ReplyDeleteA lot of Protestants wouldn't consider the Church of England to be faithful Protestants.
From what I've seen online, I get the impression that quite a number of Anglicans don't consider themselves to be Protestants. There is certainly a Protestant wing within the C of E, probably even a majority, but not all. Are the terms "Anglo-Catholic" and "High Church" ´simply alternative labels designating a single group, or do they consider themselves to be separate from one another? I don't know the answer but, in either case, it seems pretty clear that quite a lot of them would deny that they are Protestants.
@Ray, yes you're quite right! I think this is down to the CofE viewing itself as 'both Catholic and Reformed', which it feels puts it in a special category (I thank you, God, that we are not like those other Protestants!). As the Anglican Diocese in Europe boldly claims, 'being both 'Catholic' and 'Reformed' we bridge the Reformation divide' (!)
DeleteAs with many things Anglican, this sounds good but is theologically incoherent. The CofE cannot be the 'continuation of the (large C) Catholic Church in England', since its existence is emphatically predicated on not being the Church of Rome. It also can't be the continuation of the (small c) catholic church either, since it most certainly isn't worldwide nor does it have doctrinal continuity with the Catholic, Orthodox or many other Reformed churches. So, the CofE, despite its preferred self-identification, is Protestant. It exists because Henry VIII protested Rome's authority, and Edward VI protested its doctrines. The Anglican communion is not sui generis (something that even its own self-ID and Branch Theory renders an impossibility), it's Protestant. As an aside, I believe that trying to hold these two mutually opposing views in tension from its inception is part of what's led to the CofE tearing itself apart in modern times.
There is certainly a Protestant wing within the C of E, probably even a majority, but not all
I think people in the CofE tend to see themselves as Anglo-Catholic, middle-of-the-road, or Evangelical, rather than specifically as a Protestant wing. High and low church refer to the manner of worship - the amount of 'bells and smells'. Anglo-Catholics tend towards being high church: bells, incense, lavish vestments; while Evangelicals tend towards low church - guy in a suit with a wooden 'Lord's table' and a Bible. Much or most is in the middle - alb and stole (which I believe is canonically required for a communion service), or cassock, surplice and preaching scarf, no incense or bells, plain altar linen.
Here in Brazil I once heard a Catholic priest say, “The Anglican Church isn’t Protestant.” Unfortunately I didn't have an opportunity to to ask him to enlarge on that. My guess is that he probably meant something like this: People commonly think of the western Church as being divided into two parts, Catholic and Protestant, but it would be more realistic to picture it as being divided into three parts, Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant. But of course I can’t be sure.
DeleteThere's a continuity in the CofE as a severed limb of the RCC that doesn't exist in other Protestant communities, which I think can give that appearance (and was tacitly recognised by the establishment of the Ordinariate). But it's still Protestant.
DeleteI think those who aren't familiar with it can look at the Anglicans and think that they're something different because they look more like the Catholics than other Protestants do. But this masks a great deal of theological 'diversity' - when someone asks me what Anglicans believe, I say that it depends which parish you go to. And that selective approach to faith is really the definition of Protestantism.
The Catholic Herald has now posted online what seems to be Gavin Ashenden's full article about King Charles and his supposed incompatibility with his responsibilities as the titular head of the C of E. I've only taken a quick look at it so far but my first impression is that it's long, rambling, and in places frankly incoherent. Is it really worth reading? What's the general opinion here at Happy Jack's?
ReplyDeletehttps://catholicherald.co.uk/is-the-soul-of-king-charles-a-prisoner-of-the-british-monarchy-and-its-link-to-anglicanism/?swcfpc=1
I wouldn't exactly say "incoherent" except inasmuch as whatever it is that Charles believes is incoherent. It's more of a speculation on what that actually is, so I can understand why it comes over as "rambling." He does have a point about William's lack of belief, but I would argue that makes him the perfect head of the Church of England.
DeleteIt starts with and bizarrely and, frankly, falsely equating the Man in the Iron Mask and King Charles as both being types of political prisoners, and then proceeds into speculation about Charles' beliefs with the odd jab at the Church of England. The last paragraph aside, there's not much new here. I'd prefer to see a discussion of the constitutional issues without the speculation about Charles' faith, which is guesswork and none of our business.
DeleteAs I've said before, the solution would be to simply separate the roles. There is no real conflict in the monarch pledging to protect a faith s/he doesn't practice - this already happens in a pluralist society. This would leave the CofE without a Supreme Governor but, as that seems to be largely a ceremonial role, I don't think it would be a great loss.
Lian - is the King's faith "none of our business"? This would be true but for the oath he recently took on his coronation:
DeleteI Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify,
and declare that I am a faithful Protestant ...
The collapse of the ayatollahs’ regime is looking increasingly imminent, though there’s always the possibility that it might be split into two stages, like the collapse of the Soviet Union. First, the death (from natural causes) of Ayatollah Khamenei will be followed by a form of destalinization, meaning that the state–mandated savagery now propping up the regime will come to be seen as unacceptable. Khrushchev was genuinely confident that life under communism was so much better than life under capitalism that the personality cult and the gulags and the all rest of the repressive apparatus could safely be dispensed with. The second stage — Christmas 1991 — came when Khrushchev’s optimism, followed first by Brezhnev and then, more radically, by Gorbachev, turned out to be a house built on sand.
ReplyDelete