At some point soon, Price Charles will decide whether to keep, or drop, a very big word …..
Drop the definite article?
Plans for the Coronation of King Charles III are well underway. In this article I encourage readers to pray, pray, and to pray again about this ceremony and this sacrament. Some years ago (2009) I published “The Empty Promise of Godism”, which explored the question “are there multiple paths to peace with God?” A ‘Godist’ is someone who believes there are indeed many paths to God and that, (if I can say this with all due reverence), God is not too concerned about which religion you follow providing you are sincere, and are nice to other people. Consequently, out with the blood of Christ, and in with “the golden rule”. It seems that many church attenders would today broadly subscribe to this view. Which brings us back to King Charles.
Years ago the then Prince Charles stated he wished to become ‘defender of faith’ in preference to ‘defender of THE faith’. At the time he was exploring many faiths and philosophies and seems to have been favourably impressed by a number of them. In my book I explored the implications, and concluded that there is only one task that the British Monarch can undertake that the British State cannot undertake, which indirectly begs the question do we need a Monarchy or could we/should we, be a Republic? That one task is to be the defender of THE faith, as set out in the thirty nine articles of the Church of England. At its most basic, the Monarch promises to defend the Protestant understanding of access to salvation via the priesthood of all believers – access to the Father direct through the Son, without the intervention of a ‘Priest’ as mediator. When the Monarch makes his promise it is (in practice) to defend that truth at the peril of the Monarch’s own life.
When the Church of England was instituted, things were that serious. Both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I faced invasion threats from a Catholic Europe determined to re-impose ‘the true faith’ of Rome. Both Monarchs might have died in battle as a result. We recognize, of course, the huge irony in the fact that it was Pope Leo 10th who, in 1521, gave to Henry the title “Defender of THE faith” whilst at that time Henry still held allegiance to Rome. The British State cannot offer its life, as aforesaid, but the Monarch can. Today there is a looser understanding that the British Monarch will defend Christianity as ‘the faith’ of this land, in contra-distinction to other religion systems.
In the intervening years since (Prince) Charles made his declaration, there has been plenty of pushback and adverse comment. Some of it has emerged from secularists unhappy at the social and cultural implications of the Monarch defending all faiths, and the associated and evident incompatibilities of the major faiths, as well as the idea that non-Christian religions will then demand (and probably receive) significant concessions from the State. If we have 26 Bishops in the House of Lords, should we also have 26 Imams? Also, it was quipped that Charles would potentially have to defend Satanism, too, as this might become a recognized ‘religion’ in Britain. (Bizarrely, a Royal Navy rating was ‘recognised’ as a Satanist aboard HMS Cumberland in 2004, leading the Navy to issue a statement some years later that it had not officially recognized Satanism, after all. But it demonstrates the slippery slope associated with ‘recognising’ all and sundry and their private belief systems).
In “The Empty Promise of Godism” I wondered (chapters 5 and 6) whether, if Charles refused to defend Christianity as THE faith of this land, perhaps God would remove His anointing from the Monarchy and from the wider country, which has been avowedly Christian for 1,000 years. If God sees no need for a Monarch who now ‘recognises’ and defends instead-of-Christ religions, would God allow Britain to become a Republic? Will King Charles prove to be Britain’s final Monarch?
It is true to say that King Charles has been reticent on his earlier stated intention and, in the recent accession, acknowledged his role as head of the Church of England and Episcopal church governance. At the point of writing this article it is unclear, however, just how the new King will discharge his duties. Whilst acknowledging a commitment to Christianity he has also stated he wishes to be seen as defender of all faiths (which brings us back to Satanism, potentially). King Charles’ position, then, is classic “Godist” in the sense defined in my book. Incidentally, I reached the conclusion when writing the book that church-attenders cannot have their cake and eat it, as regards Christianity and Godism. They are one, or the other; they cannot be both.
Is the Pope a Catholic?
This used to be a favourite quip when one wanted to state the very obvious. Today the joke has taken on a different hue as Pope Francis has certainly dallianced with non-Christian religions. Has the Pope said all religions lead to God? The answer is simultaneously yes and no. In fact his position is one that politicians would recognise from their own craft where words can be ‘interpreted’ rather loosely, and from which one can ‘distance’ on later clarification. This is surely intentional. The Pope’s present focus is on the Higher Committee of Human Fraternity and this is an extract: ,a thoroughly Godist alliance.
“To be “brothers in Christ” or “companions to the Prophet” does not imply that there must be a hostility between brothers and companions; in fact, there could be an even greater loyalty to our respective spiritual Teachers if the richness of the forms they brought could be understood as a way to vie with each other in good deeds. In this way we might come to a deeper understanding of the Absolute, Metaphysical, and Single Truth based on the recognition of a shared metaphysical perspective and the inner tension that is proper to the traditional forms through which this Truth manifests, a tension that does not posit cultural relativism but, rather, a mysterious and fully blessed spiritual participation by every believer in their specific “religious grammar” through which the Will and the Mercy of God transmits Its intelligible signs in a sacred communication”
In the online magazine Christian Comment (CC) I have looked at this in-depth and do not wish to recapitulate here. Interested readers can look at a range of linked materials on the CC website. The simple point I do wish to make is that the Pope, in particular, but also many other “Christian” religious “leaders”, have made plain that they see themselves as ‘linked’ to other religions in a symbiotic way.
Catholics in general seem to exist in a vacuum on this question. I asked an old Catholic buddy whether he considers the Pope to be a Catholic by the standpoint of traditional Catholicism. Being a brutal realist he acknowledged that, indeed, the present Pope cannot be defined as Catholic by that historical and traditional yardstick. Yet when I mentioned this to another Catholic recently (interestingly at a half-day prophecy conference) he evinced total ignorance of the Pope’s inter-religious dalliances.
The Bible in Revelation chapter 13 posits a picture of a one-world religion emerging as part of the End-Time scenario. The Pope’s interest, mirrored by King Charles’ preferences, point ominously towards the fulfillment of this prophetic message.
Dismissive of God
I believe that the practical outworking of Godism (interfaithism) is that it is ultimately dismissive of God, Who has definitively revealed Himself as “The God of Jacob”. Indeed, Godism creates a “god” solely in the imagination of the ‘true Godist’, a “god” that is completely at odds with the revelation of God incarnate in our Lord Jesus. In the 380 pages of “The Empty Promise of Godism” I argue this at length (!) as well as positing the true attributes of God as I understand them from a straightforward Biblical reading. My underlying thesis is that a good, a holy, and a righteous God would not reveal Himself in myriad and mutually exclusive ways; if He did, how could we call Him ‘good’? Bizarrely a Methodist once told me she does not see God as unwaveringly good, and (presumably) not holy either. What an ugly thing Godism is!
The diagram with this article helps illustrate how Godism is ultimately dismissive of God, at a range of levels. How sad! Godism proffers a do-it-yourself God, made in the image of religions, in turn made in the image of mankind! The ‘promise’ is of a world where everyone gets along just fine, each worshipping their ‘god’ in their own sweet way. An empty promise, indeed.
Pray, Pray and Pray Again
Whilst the initial signals via King Charles III are promising, insofar he seems to have rolled back on public denial of the Christian faith, it is unquestionably true that he and his advisers are assailed right now by myriad voices wanting to adjust the service of coronation, to distance the ceremony (and ‘evolve’ it) away from its unashamedly Christian context of the 1953 ceremony when our late and loved Queen Elizabeth II was crowned. She was a true child of Christ and made that clear. Today, right now, there is a mighty spiritual battle for the heart and soul of the coming Coronation, and for the heart and soul of this nation. Let’s be very much in prayer in the months ahead. Let us pray fervently that our King will identify as defender of THE faith, to the Glory of Jesus.
FURTHER READING
https://christiancomment.org/2021/06/16/interfaithism-2/
https://christiancomment.org/2022/07/22/do-we-need-a-monarchy/
https://christiancomment.org/2022/07/22/the-queens-oath/
Recent Comments