Category: Religion

King Charles the Martyr?

In some quarters, yesterday was considered the feast of King Charles the Martyr, better known to most people as Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

Charles probably had one of the unhappiest reigns of any English monarch. A strong believer in the Divine Right of Kings, he was almost constantly at loggerheads with Parliament, and he sought to rule as an absolute monarch. The final straw was when he tried to force Anglicanism on Scotland, resulting in the Bishops’ Wars, which served as a prelude to the English Civil Wars of 1642 to 1651.

A right royal prat
After Sir Anthony van Dyck [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
As many of you know, Charles was ultimately defeated, put on trial, and executed. But of course the monarchy was eventually restored, and in 1660, the Convocations of Canterbury and York decided that the day of Charles’ execution should be commemorated with a special service in the Book of Common Prayer. The service was subsequently annexed to the Prayer Book by a royal warrant of Charles II along with the services commemorating the Gunpowder Plot and the restoration of the monarchy.[note]Legally speaking, they were an addendum to the Prayer Book since they were not included in the text that was attached to the Act of Uniformity 1662.[/note]

The service itself was a piece of ecclesiastical masochism filled to the brim with handwringing over the evils of executing a divinely anointed sovereign. By the mid-nineteenth century, this attitude seemed increasingly out-of-date, and Queen Victoria removed it from the Prayer Book in 1859 at the request of both Houses of Parliament along with the Gunpowder Plot and Restoration services.[note]Some Anglo-Catholics question the validity of Victoria’s warrant discontinuing these services, but since the services were enjoined by royal fiat rather than statute, they could be removed by an executive act of the sovereign alone.[/note]

Nowadays, the cult of King Charles the Martyr has largely faded from public view, though he still appears in the Calendar of Common Worship, the book of ‘alternative’ services that has replaced the Book of Common Prayer in many Church of England parishes. Although some Anglo-Catholics bewail the downgrading, the cult of King Charles the Martyr is an aberration best left in the seventeenth century.

One of the justifications for his continued commemoration is that he was a martyr for Anglicanism. Anglo-Catholics often paint him as a stalwart defender of episcopacy and Catholic tradition in the face of militant Presbyterianism.[note]In reality, Charles was a pragmatist who was willing to throw the episcopate under the bus if he thought it would help his cause. For example, after he was captured by Parliamentary forces in 1647, Charles signed a secret treaty with the Scots (known as ‘The Engagement’) wherein he promised to impose Presbyterianism on England for three years in exchange for military support.[/note] Now I have no problem with episcopacy (I am, after all, an Episcopalian!) or Catholic tradition, but I’m not sure they’re more important than the liberties of Charles’ subjects. This was a man who had no problem imprisoning people without trial and imposing illegal taxes, and his behavior was seen as problematic even by seventeenth-century standards.

I’ve heard defenders of Charles try to get around his failings by pointing out that nobody’s perfect, and just because a person has flaws doesn’t mean they aren’t worthy of veneration by the faithful. But by the same token, just because someone displays certain virtues doesn’t mean they should be venerated either. It’s ultimately a question of balance, and in the final analysis, Charles seems rather wanting.

A response to “What Ails the Episcopalians”

The Wall Street Journal recently ran an op-ed piece that can only be described as a hatchet job aimed at The Episcopal Church. Now as many of you know, I am an Episcopalian. I converted several years ago, and it’s one of the best decisions I’ve ever made. So when I see the church subjected to ill-informed vilification, it kind of pisses me off.

The author, Jay Akasie, writes that our triennial General Convention is characterized by its “sheer ostentation and carnival atmosphere.” While I’ve never been to General Convention myself, I have watched the proceedings extensively. Akasie and I must have been watching different conventions because I didn’t see any “carnival atmosphere.” I saw a bunch of people sitting in a drab convention center arguing about parliamentary procedure. The only thing I saw that could be characterized as ‘ostentatious’ was the doctoral gown worn by the President of the House of Deputies when she presided over the House. But even that’s pretty tame compared to what other presiding officers wear!

Akasie also derides the Convention’s work, claiming that they “discussed such weighty topics as whether to develop funeral rites for dogs and cats, and whether to ratify resolutions condemning genetically modified foods.” But that’s a distorted picture of what actually happened. There was a resolution to authorize certain prayers for use with companion animals, but I’m not sure why the church deserves to be excoriated for trying to provide additional pastoral care. Besides, it hardly dominated the agenda.

Also, there was no resolution condemning genetically modified food. There was a resolution asking the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies to appoint a task force to “to inform the Church of the issues surrounding the development of genetically engineered crop plants and the patenting of genetically modified organisms.” I hadn’t realized that seeking more information about a subject was tantamount to condemning it.

What Akasie failed to mention is that the General Convention passed several pieces of legislation that reaffirmed our commitment to the dignity and worth of all human beings. Now it is beyond doubt that transgendered individuals can take part in all aspects of church life, including the ordination process. And LGBT Christians can finally stand before a congregation and affirm their commitment to one another. Contrary to what Akasie seems to think, the things General Convention do make a difference.

Akasie also attacks our Presiding Bishop, who he accuses of being “secretive and authoritarian.” She is taken to task for “brazenly” carrying a metropolitan cross. Now a metropolitan cross is traditionally the prerogative of a bishop who has jurisdiction over other bishops. In the Anglican tradition, they are usually called archbishops, but we don’t have archbishops in The Episcopal Church. Instead, we have a Presiding Bishop who carries out many of the same functions. So it’s entirely fitting that she should carry a metropolitan cross. She’s not the first Presiding Bishop to carry a metropolitan cross, either. I wonder if Akasie thinks they were brazen, too?

Her choice of regalia isn’t the only objectionable thing about her in Akasie’s eyes. She’s also reprimanded for suing dioceses and parishes that have tried to secede and take church property with them. But Akasie conveniently ignores the fact that, under canon law, all church property is held in trust for the national church. I think it’s terrible that lawsuits are necessary, but the Presiding Bishop and her officials can hardly stand idly by and watch as people run off with property that belongs to the national church.

Of course the Presiding Bishop isn’t the only bad egg in the church’s hierarchy, according to Akasie. There’s also a cadre of “revisionist bishops” who are determined to rewrite the Book of Common Prayer using “blunt modern language and with politically correct intent.” In a bid to thwart the laymen who are courageously resisting these terrible innovations, the bishops are said to be intent on nothing less than the destruction of the church’s democracy. Comically, Akasie says that “a long-standing quest by laymen to celebrate the Eucharist,” which is said to be “a favorite cause of the church’s left wing,” could be in danger from the sort of undemocratic, unicameral legislature that the evil bishops are allegedly proposing.

Never mind the fact that the revisionist bishops that Akasie loathes so much are all elected officials who presumably represent the views of a majority of the Episcopalians in their dioceses. And never mind the fact we Episcopalians take our liturgy seriously (the beauty of holiness and all that), and so the idea of a cabal of liberal bishops tearing it up and substituting some bland pabulum strikes me as a bit nutty. That’s not to say that we don’t produce some less-than-stellar liturgical resources from time to time, but the difficulties involved in amending the Prayer Book help ensure that bad ideas don’t get etched in stone. And finally, the only Anglicans that I know of who want to see lay presidency are in the Diocese of Sydney, Australia. They’re pretty much diametrically opposed to the church’s left wing!

The Episcopal Church isn’t perfect. It never will be, considering it’s run by fallible humans who have a tendency to project their own views onto the Almighty. I admit that I roll my eyes at some of the things that go on in the church, but that’s just the price you pay for being a ‘big tent’ church. I would be hard pressed to think of another Christian community that tolerates the degree of theological disagreement that we do. There are Episcopalians who fervently believe in transubstantiation, and who seek the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the saints. There are also Episcopalians who see the Eucharist as nothing more than a memorial, and who worship plainly, without smells or bells. And when the church decides to take a stance from which a significant minority dissents (such as ordaining women or blessing same-sex unions), we do our best to ensure that dissenters aren’t persecuted because of their conscientious objection.

At the end of the article, Akasie says that he is an Episcopalian. But if he’s so unhappy with the church that he feels the need to resort to this sort of error-laden smear campaign, perhaps he should start looking for a new spiritual home.