Here at Lambeth Palace we should remind ourselves of the significant position of the Church of England in our nation’s life. The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.
It certainly provides an identity and spiritual dimension for its own many adherents. But also, gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely. Woven into the fabric of this country, the Church has helped to build a better society ”“ more and more in active co-operation for the common good with those of other faiths.
Rather a softball in my view, but here’s the money sentence:
“Prince Philip and I wish to send our good wishes, through you, to each of your communities, in the hope that – with the assurance of the protection of our established Church – you will continue to flourish and display strength and vision in your relations with each other and the rest of society”.
I do wish that she had spoken in defense of Christianity, since she IS the “Defender of the Faith.” I realize that, according to British custom, she cannot speak out specifically, but perhaps it’s time for that custom to change. It should, you know……otherwise, the title is meaningless.
I understand that of the nine ‘faiths’ represented at this knees-up, not all were Christian. Remember it is not a ‘christian’ event in any sense, but a government-sponsored function for several different religions to attend. If she lauded Christianity in particular, a Jewish or Muslim cleric in attendance might well respond: “Yes, I know you are Christian and I am not. I was invited to a meeting of leaders of different faiths. If you were going to throw Christianity in my face, why invite me in the first place?”.
Madge probably went as far as she could without being rude. But she still managed to subtly make her point, that it is the position of christianity with an established place in British society (via the CofE) that permits all other religions to flourish.
However, on the subject of not exercising her role as Defender of the Faith by correcting the Church of England’s leaders in matters of faith and morals, she has fallen short of what many think she should be doing.
Well, can anyone imagine how badly Prince Charles would’ve botched a similar speech? He who has openly declared, without embarrassment but rather with misplaced pride, that when he becomes king, he wants to be known not as “Defender of THE Faith,” but as “Defender of Faith.” Any old kind of faith will do, you know, as long as you have one…
Long live the Queen!
David Handy+
Before one criticized HM, it would be well to watch again her brilliant Christmas speech. A more emphatically Christian message one will not hear from any other head of state in the world.
Respectfully Cennydd I do think you and others are missing the significance of what HM said at Lambeth Palace.
The starting point is that as a constitutional monarch, the Queen is regarded as above politics and controversy and generally immune from criticism and involvement in domestic politics – and the counterside to that status is that she does not comment on political matters. The position of the Church of England is interesting because on the one hand, as an established church, the CofE is a matter of law and established under the oversight of Parliament, so church matters are in one way ‘political’ and one would not expect her to comment. On the other hand, at her coronation, the Queen vowed to protect the Church of England and its position in law and society, so that does give her a right perhaps to act to protect it where she feels that she is required to do so under her vows.
There have been three interventions by HM in the last 18 months where she has given a very clear steer, although in the indirect way which she has of making herself very clear without appearing to be specific or direct, but leaving no doubt what she means. Those are:
1. The opening speech to Synod last year, which gave a steer on how the Church should be approaching its mission and also controversy on issues [including it seems women bishops];
2. The very Christian message of the Christmas Day Message; and
3. This speech.
This last speech was an interfaith meeting at Lambeth Palace where I frankly wouldn’t expect her to tell the Roman Catholics, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims that they should convert to the Church of England as some seem to think she should; but in the context of the occassion she gave her very clear support to the Church of England, its established status, and its value in setting the case for and fighting for the space of faith in British Society. This has to be seen in the context of the recent attacks on the Church of England and its established status in relation to the attacks of Professor Dawkins and the quesioning of its role in society and even its presence in Parliament through its bishops.
I think the background to this is that in the face of sustained attack from secularists on all religion, the CofE among others is seeking to get the backing of other denominations and faiths for concerted action to fight for the space for freedom of religion and belief in British society where it is increasingly under attack from hostile politicians, media and judges.
HM’s intervention in this speech has been heard and welcomed by Christians and the CofE as support for the established status and contribution of the CofE to the country. We are grateful.
HM has been quite vocal recently.
Another point to add to Pageantmaster’s: My archbishop (Peter Jensen) is well known for pulling no punches in public discourse. He says what he believes. But I don’t think he would have said it much differently to the Queen at this meeting. We have to give people the same courtesy that we would expect from them. The leaders of other faiths were invited to attend in order to receive the British government’s thanks for the contribution made by them and their followers to British society. It would have been rude to then use the speaker’s chair as a platform to harangue them on why the Christian religion is better, in circumstances where they have no right of reply.
Would such a harangue be true? Of course. Would it be a winsome witness likely to focus the minds of these leaders or their followers on the truth of the Gospel? Most unlikely. If you treat people unfairly (in a way that we would not want to be treated), it just gives them a distraction, an excuse to think about the unfairness and blank out the real message you are trying to convey.
Its a different situation, when the Queen delivers her Christmas speech. Or when ++Jensen was invited to deliver the (very secular) Boyer Lectures on National Radio a few years ago. Then no-one has a right to complain if the speaker lets fly with a strong gospel message (as they each did!)
The point that I was trying to make is that as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith is that I believe Her Majesty should remind her bishops and archbishops of the importance of the vows they made at their consecration, and that they must adhere strictly to those wows.
#9 I am in complete agreement with you Cennydd that bishops must strictly adhere to their wows…otherwise there will be twubble!